Sinfulness of American Slavery by Charles Elliott Vol 1
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:Sinfulness of American slavery: proved from its evil sources; its injustice; its wrongs; its contrariety to many Scriptural commands, prohibitions, and principles, and to the Christian spirit; and from its evil effects; together with observations on emancipation, and the duties of American citizens in regard to slavery. By Rev. Charles Elliott, D.D. Ed. by Rev. B. F. Tefft.

Author:Elliott, Charles, 1792-1869.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:Sinfulness of American slavery: proved from its evil sources; its injustice; its wrongs; its contrariety to many Scriptural commands, prohibitions, and principles, and to the Christian spirit; and from its evil effects; together with observations on emancipation, and the duties of American citizens in regard to slavery. By Rev. Charles Elliott, D.D. Ed. by Rev. B. F.

Tefft.

Elliott, Charles, 1792-1869.

2 v. 18 cm.

Cincinnati,

L. Swormstedt & J. H. Power,

1850.

Page 1 view page image

SINFULNESS OF AMERICAN SLAVERY: ITS EVIL SOURCES; ITS INJUSTICE; ITS

WRONGS; ITS CONTRARIETY TO MANY SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS, PROHIBITIONS, AND

PRINCIPLES, AND TO THE CHRISTIAN SPIRIT; AND FROM ITS EVIL EFFECTS; TOGETHER WITH OBSERVATIONS ON EMANCIPATION, AND THE DUTIES OF AMERICAN

CITIZENS IN REGARD TO SLAVERY. BY REV. CHARLES ELLIOTT, D. D. EDITED BY

REV. B. F. TEFFT, D. D. “Thou shalt not steal.”-EIOHTH COMMANDMENT. “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”-ExoDus XXI, 16. “The law is made.. for men-stealers.”-1 TIMOTHY I, 9, 10. “Hominum fures, qui vel servos vel liberos abducunt, retinent, vendunt, vel emunt.” [Those are men-steaLers who abduct, keep, sell, or buy slaves or freemen.]-POOL’S SYNOPSIS ON 1

TIMOTHY I, 9, 10. “Every American who loves his country, should dedicate his whole life, and every faculty of his soul, to efface the foul stain [of slavery] from its character.“EDINBURG REVIEW, NO. LXI, P. 146. IN TWO

VOLUMES. VOLUME I. gincinnati: PUBLISHED BY L. SWORMSTEDT & J. H. POWER, FOR TE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE WESTERN BOOK CONCERN, CORNER OF

MAIN AND EIGHTH STREETS. R. P. THOMPSON, PRINTER. 1850. I e *’ e

RROVED FROM

Page 2 view page image

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, BY SWORMSTEDT &

POWER, In the Clerk’s Office for the District Court for the District of Ohio. ……….e oes
w@…………………………………………………………………………………………….-Xe - 664 -…. ..

Page 3 view page image

PREFACE. THE General conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1848, appointed the author of these volumes to write the history of the Church for the four previous years, which involved, as a leading topic, a survey of the subject of slavery. This led him to as accurate and extensive an examination of slavery, in all its relations, as his capacity and means of information would allow. He had been, for the fifteen years previous to the last, engaged in conducting the periodical press, so that ample means of information were within his reach from this source. All the books pub lished on slavery in this country, for the most part, form part of his library. The greater part, too, of what ap peared in Britain, on the slavetrade, and emancipation, through the gift of Dr. Dixon, are in his possession. An inspection of the list of books and pamphlets, at the end of the second volume, will show, that all the important sources of information have been consulted. Before commencing, in form, the contemplated history, a careful study of the whole subject of slavery was necessary. This led to the preparation of the following volume, on the sinfulness of slavery, which is proved from its evil origin, its injustice, its wrongs, its conflict with Christian principles and the Christian spirit, and from its evil effects on all concerned in it. The material for the preparation of another volume, on Servitude and Slavery, is now collected. These volumes are intended to show that the Scripture neither sanctions nor tolerates slavery proper; that the regulations of the Mosaic code referred to servitude, so as to prevent it from running into slavery. An account of Roman slavery, 3 . I

Page 4 view page image

PREFACE. drawn particularly from the civil law, is reserved for this connection, as it stands related to slavery as treated in the New Testament. The preparation of this volume is now postponed, till the history of the four years shall have been completed, if God spare life and health even for this. The history will consider, as a matter of course, slavery in its ecclesiastical relations, as a subject of discipline in the Christian Church. Our plan, then, embraces the general subject of slavery in the present volumes; servitude and slavery as portrayed and treated in holy Scripture; and slavery in its ecclesiastical relations. The writer of these volumes is bound by no undue obigations, nor is he trammeled with any impediments, either ecclesiastical, political, or social. The truth and the right, and they only, have magisterial control over him in this matter. He owes no submission to any man, or set of men in this world, other than what the pure truth of God requires and the Scriptural principles of right demand. He is bound by no dictation, jurare in verba magistri, to submit to any master, other than God and his holy word. He has no place to seek in Church, state, or society, to trammel him in any thing. As a free man, therefore, he unfalteringly speaks out, fearing Him only who is the author of all good, the source of truth, and the giver of liberty to man, as one of his noblest gifts to the human family. Without further explanation, he therefore submits the following volumes to the consideration of a free people, confidently believing that they will receive them with the cordiality’of independent and free men. CHARLES

ELLIOTT. Xenia, Ohio, Jan. 1,.1850. 4

Page 5 view page image

CON T EN T S. PART I. AMERICAN SLAVERY AND THE AFRICAN SLAVETRADE.

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Slavery defined-Roman laws-Quotation from Stroud-South Carolina on Slavery-Legal view of the question-Sketch of the laws relating to slavery-Judicial decisions upholding slaveryDecision of Judge Crenshaw-Correspondence between the practices and workings of the system and the statutes and legal decisions on the same-No people better than their laws-Declaration of Scripture-Difference between the system of slavery and some who are slaveholders by law-Two classes of slaveholders-Great dissimilarity-Christians generally opposed to slavery-Some who think the system right-Resolutions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church-Declaration of Rev. James SmylieBaptist pleaders of slavery-Dr. Fuller-Charleston and Edgefield associations-Methodist slave-pleaders-Dr. Longstreet-Professor Simms-Statesmen and politicians in favor of slavery-Governor M’Duffie-Mr.

Calhoun-Mr. Hammond-W. B. Seabrook-Civil and political features of the system-Dr. Wayland and Dr. FullerSlavery tested by the Scripture standard-Who are slaves?-Definitions and distinctions-Change of times and opinions…. Page 15 CHAPTER II. MORAL IDENTITY OF THE AFRICAN SLAVETRADE

AND SLAVERY. A brief survey of the origin of the slavetrade-How are slaves procured in Africa?-Force, fraud, and theft-The “middle passage “-Its horrors-Slave markets-The home traffic portrayedAmerican slavery constantly reducing persons to slavery-Instances-Free negroes-Piracy-Slave-raising-Opinion of Judge Upshur, Mr. Mercer, Mr.

Clay, and Mr. Gholson-Hon. John Randolph-Professor Dew-Quotations from various newspapers-The trade between the states-Advertisements-Address of Mr. Giddings-Scene in Uniontown, Pa.-J. K. Paulding, Esq.-Feather 1* 5

Page 6 view page image

CONTENTS. stonaugh on America-Rev. J. O’Kelly on negro slavery-Specification of the atrocities connected with American slavery-The horrors of the two systems alike-Shakspeare quoted-William Pinckney-Thomas Erskine-Slavery the parent of the slavetrade Africa before the existence of the slavetrade-The destruction of slavery certain…………………………………. Page 39 CHAPTER III. THE

ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. No one ever born a slave-Liberty the natural and inalienable right of every human being-Violation of the law of nature-All men owners of themselves-Heathenism-The enslavement of children forbidden in the law of Moses-Contrary to the spirit of the New Testament-Colored children as justly entitled to freedom as the white-Continuance in theft-The darkest page of human criminality-The enslaving of children a mere substitute for the African slavetrade-No one entitled to the services of another for life-Right of freedom belongs to all-Man not a chattel-Opinions of statesmen-Rights of the master considered-Stolen propertyKidnappers-Every case in which a child is made a slave is a new case of enslavement, as original as that which occurs in the case of an African stolen from Africa-The Rev. John Wesley quoted……………………………………………. 83 PART II.

DEPRIVATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS. CHAPTER I. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-NATURAL

RIGHTS-PERSONAL LIBERTY-PER SONAL SECURITY-RIGHT OF PROPERTY. Wrongs-Two kinds-Rights absolute and rights relativeOpinion of Blackstone-Civil and conventional rights-Terms defined and principles resulting-Divine rights-Commentaries on the laws of England-Natural rights trampled on by slaveryPersonal liberty-Objections to making man an article of property-The idea of holding man as property is contrary to the right idea of property-The inalienable rights of man by slavery become the sole property of another-If one man be sold as property, so can all men-Making men property leads to treating them as property-Hebrew servants were not property-Brougham’s speech before the British Parliament-Buxton quoted-Dr.

Rice-Slavery and the right of holding property-Laws of the slave states in regard to the time to be employed in labor-Inhuman regulationsDownright robbery-Slavery at war with personal security… 104 6

Page 7 view page image

CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. Education withheld from the slave-No legal provision for persons of color-Laws of South Carolina-Statements of slaveholders-Synod of Kentucky-The interests of the master against the mental culture of his slaves-Violatior of Scriptural precepts and commands-Disastrous effects of ignorance-Channing quotedChancellor Harper-Rev. James Smylie-His views in reference to educating the slave population-Fuller and Wayland-Protection of the master secured by the ignorance of the slavesThe laboring classes of free states-Laboring classes of Europe-A heavy millstone - Oral religious instruction a failure-Such instruction too limited, too superficial, and too circumscribed in every
particular………………………………………. Page 121 CHAPTER

III. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. The duties inculcated by Christianity-Quotations from the Bible-Rights of conscience-The Constitution and the laws of the United States-Denial of all religious privileges to the slave-A law of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and Mississippi-Slavery versus religious instruction and the privileges of the GospelSlaves denied access to God’s word, not provided with a regular ministry,. and the social means of grace but limitedly used by them-Argument of Dr. Fuller-Three ways in which the rights of conscience are violated-A most heinous sin-Testimony of the synod of Kentucky-One of the worst features of the slave system-Slavery against the spread of true religion-Remarks of a runaway slave-Startling statements…………………… 134 CHAPTER IV. DEPRIVATION OF

RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. No such thing as marriage, properly so called, among slavesOpinion of Mr. Dulaney, Attorney-General of Maryland-Annihilation of the right of marriage-The Scriptures made void-Mr. Rice to Mr.

Blanchard-Singular evasion-Slavery leads to licentiousness among the slaves and among the masters-General concubinage-Consequences of the abrogation of marriage-Masters’ children frequently slavesThe quadroons of New Orleans-Sale of one’s own offspring-British custom-Slave-growing-Dr. W. E. Channing’s views-Miss Martineau on slavery and emancipation-Monstrous illegal amalgamation-Shameless hypocrisyDegradation of woman-Public advertisements-Bible oppositionOpinions of some slaveholders against such abominations-Incest common-Redemption from slavery…………………….. 146 7

Page 8 view page image

CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-IVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY, INVOLVING INJURIES. Civil disabilities of slavery, involving great injustice-A slave can not be a witness against a white person-Wheeler and Stroud quoted-The law excluding the testimony of slaves extends to all colored persons-Injurious effects of this disability-Most of the protecting laws a mere nullity-Chief Justice Atley-Sir William Young, Governor of Tobago, and others-Decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana-The remedy proposed by southern laws of no account-South Carolina enactment-Why are colored persons refused the privilege of testifying in court?-The question considered-Unparalleled intolerance-Peculiar viciousness-A slave can not be a party to a civil suit-Six considerations namedSpeech of a slave on trial-Unlimited submission required of the slave-Law of Georgia, Maryland, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina-Injury of a slave-Slaves can make no contracts-Can not redeem themselves-Laws against emancipation examined…………………………………….. Page 159 PART III.

INJURIES INFLICTED BY AMERICAN SLAVERY. CHAPTER I. EXCESSIVE PENALTIES

INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. Primary object of law-Quotations from Scripture-Cru,lel enactments against the slave-Specimens from the laws of various slave states-Whipping and death-The chief kinds of punishmentProsecution of slaves-Strange measure-Trial by jury-The slave always kept profoundly ignorant of the laws, and when, through ignorance, he breaks one, condign punishment results-Child’s Oration-Unlimited power of the master in punishing a slave-Law of North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia Moderate correctionSouth Carolina regulation-Constitution of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri-Quotation fli )lIl Stroud-The master and his deputy possessed of boundless p)ower The heart of slavery revealed-The opinion of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook, of South Carolina-Five methods of punishment proposed-Corporeal punishment-Solitary confinement-Deprivation of privileges-Additional labor-Transportation…………………………………………. 183

8

Page 9 view page image

CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES I$REFERENCE TO LABOR, FOOD, CLOTHING, DWELL INS, AND HEALTH. The time of labor determined by the master-The law of Georgia of 1817-Law of South Carolina of 1740-Mississippi-The time of labor in South Carolina is enormous-Bite and work-The argument from self-interest-Consequences of overworking-Retribution of Heaven-The food of slaves, as to quantity and quality, determined solely by the master-What is meant by sufficient foodCorn the usual food of slaves-Meat withheld-Rations of the United States’ soldiers and state prisoners-Testimony of Rev. Thomas S. Clay, of Georgia-Clothing of slaves not adequate to comfort or decency-Provisions of different states on the subjectWhy the slave is poorly clothed-The dwellings of slaves-Quotations on the subject-Provision for sick and aged slaves-Act of Georgia for December 12, 1815-Sarah M. Grimke-George A.

Avery-The privations of slaves continued-Dr. Channing-Moral character of the system…………………………. Page 200 CHAPTER III. CRUELTIES

OF SLAVERY. The punishments of slaves amount to the greatest inhumanitySeveral specifications made-Penalties-Property of the master more sacred than the person of the slaveTwo laws of Louisiana cited-Indifference to the torments of slaves-Brenard’s Digest quoted-Decision of Judge Matthews, of Louisiana-Another decision-Shooting slaves-Uniform cruelty of American slaveryMr. Whitfield quoted -Woolman -Pinckney - O’Kelly-RicePresident Edwards, the younger-Major Stoddard-Testimony of the Gradual Emancipation Society of North Carolina-Rev. J. RankinJudge Ruffin-Mr. Moore, of Virginia-Swaim, of North Carolina-J. C. Finley to Mr. Mahan-Mr. Thome’s speech, New York, 1834-Synod of Kentucky-Specimens of whipping-G. W. Westgate quoted-Horace Moulton-S. M. Grimke-Tortures of slaves-Branding, crippling, and cutting-The overseer and the driver-Description of a slave-dealer, by Hon.

J. K. Paulding-Inhumanity proved-Advertisements-Moral evils and actual sins flowing from slavery-Objections noticed-Denial of these cruelties-Dr.

Fuller-Feeble logic-A serious omission-Contempt of marriage and all marriage relations-Evasion by all champions of slavery of the real point at issue-A slavery guided by justice or love is no slavery at all-Confession of Dr. Fuller to Dr. Wayland-Dr. Fuller practically an insurrectionist and an abolitionistGratifying consideration-Some improvement hoped for……. 218 9

Page 10 view page image

CONTENTS. PART IV. CONTRARIETY TO THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES. CHAPTER I.

SLAVERY CONTRARY TO MANY SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. Despotism of slavery considered-Quotations-Confession of Dr. Fuller-Declaration of Thomas Jefferson-E. C. Holland-W. B. Seabrook-What is a despot?-Declaration of IndependenceGovernor M’Duffie-The civil law-Its application-A sad picture-Two slaveholders quoted-The Bible views slavery as oppression-Treatment of the Hebrews-Scripture precepts-Deprivation of just and righteous wages-The laborer is worthy of his hire-Condemnation of the capture of fugitive slaves-Hebrew servitude-Slaves-Laws in regard to fugitive slaves opposed to the Bible-Argument-Outrageous enormities-No liberty for the slave in the United States-Sad narrative-Constitution of the United States-Act of Congress, passed February 12,1793-Pennsylvania the forum of most of the decisions respecting fugitive slaves-Laws of the United States and of the slave states, in regard to the capture of fugitive slaves, directly opposed to the Mosaic code-A Hebrew servant, when maltreated, could claim freedom-Not so with American slaves-Stealers of men in old times punished with death-Enormities practiced in regard to the capture of fugitive slaves-Practical workings of the system-Outline of treating runaways-Caution against running away-Pursuit of runaways-Blood-hounds-Deadly weapons-Professional men-hunters-Advertisements-Chaining and torturing fugitive slaves……………………………………….. Page 251 CHAPTER II.

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. Contrary to justice or righteousness-Proof-Contrary to the great law of love-The Bible cited-General statements-Keeping slaves for their good-The ” golden rule”

opposed to slavery-St. Augustine on Matthew vii, 12-Cornelius a Lapide-Dr.

Doddridge-No one under the influence of this rule ever made another a slave, nor would he continue the practice of the system under the guidance of the “golden rule”-The brotherhood of the human race-Evasion of the law of this brotherhood-A question propounded and answered-Captives-Jesus Christ and MosesTeachings of the prophets-Slavery shows no mercy to the poorQuotations from Scripture - Obedience of children - Separation of parents and children-Narrative of Mr. Birney-A Missouri negro-trader -

Husbands and wives - Marriage may be forbidden-Two advertisements-Rev. J.

H. Dickey’s description of a 10

Page 11 view page image

“drove “-Rev. A. Rankin -” Search the Scriptures “- Slavery does not allow this-Duty of the slave to aim at freedom-Decision of Judge Ruffin………………………………… Page 274 CHAPTER III.

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES AND PRIVILEGES. Contrary to the original grant which God gave to man-God’s charter gives no grant of property in man-Quotation from Genesis-The declaration of the Psalmistlavery contradicts the grant made by God in two ways: first, by one portion of the human family claiming and securing another portion of the human family, and, secondly, by depriving that portion of the common property bestowed on the whole race of mankind-The Saxon has no right of property in the Indian or African-God the only lawful despot-Slavery divides and scatters families-Slaveholders monopolizers and robbers-Property the right of all-Slavery sinks the divine image of God, in which man was created, to the level of brutality-Passages from various parts of the Scriptures-Indirect attacks on God-Fighting against him-All mental improvement in slaves denounced by pro-slavery men-Christ died for all-John iii, 16-The work of redemption antagonistic to slavery-Declaration of St. Paul-The same sacrifice made for the slave as for the master-Christian brethren in bonds and chains-The early Christians opposed to the spirit and practice of slavery-Usurpation of divine rights-The claims of slavery equal the claims of HeavenSlavery contrary to the natural equality of mankind-Bible declarations-Human equality recognized by the Bible-The ground on which Aristotle defended slavery-Slavery contrary to the chief end of man, which is to glorify God and enjoy him forever…. 299 CHAPTER IV. TIHE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY.

Eight reasons given for the consideration of the ten commandmentsSlavery a breach of the first commandment-The point discussed-Opposed to the second commandment-The slave can not worship God-Slavery encourages profanity-Proof-Violates the Sabbath-Does not allow the obedience of children to parents-Reciprocal duties of parents and children despised-The servant and the slave-EEncourages mnurder-Stroud quotedO’Kelly on this point-Rev. John Rankin, of Tennessee-Instances of atrocious murders -

Burning of negroes - Several examples cited-Slow deaths by fire common-Suicides-Lex talionis illustrated-Murder by a negro-Adultery encouraged by slavery-Valuable slavesThe Edmondson sisters-Process of amalgamation 11 CONTENTS.

Page 12 view page image

Slavery a violation of the eighth commandment-” Thou shalt not steal “-Westminster catechism-Bishop Hopkins-Exposition of the ten commandments - Slaveholders, according to St. Paul, are men-stealers- The Greek word andrapodistes analyzed -Dr. Bloomfield’s view-Analysis of the crime of theft-What constitutes theft?-Quotations from Exodus xxi, 16, Proverbs xxix, 24, and Psalm 1, 18-lBishop Hopkins again-Men, being naturally free, are incapable of becoming goods or chattels-Judge Blackstone quoted-Slaveholding is robbery beyond all other robberyReal slaveholders swindlers-Blackstone’s Commentaries-Slavery is theft-African and American thieving-Hard terms-Stolen property-Passage from the life of William Brown-Quotations from Genesis and Deuteronomy-Stealers, sellers, purchasers, and holders of slaves, alike guilty-Penalty of the Mosaic law-Larger catechism of the Presbyterian Church-The Mosaic law on manstealing recognized and resanctioned in the New Testament by St.

Paul-Slavery a breach of the eighth commandment, according to all good interpreters-Westminster Assembly-Punishments of the Lord-Report on the Free People of Color of Ohio-Horrible case of kidnapping-Contrary to the ninth and tenth commandments, and against all just laws, human and divine…………Page 310 CHAPTER V. SLAVERY CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF

CHRISTIANITY. The right, such as the master claims over the slave, not acknowledged by the Bible-The matter demonstrated-Slavery and the light diffused by Christianity at variance-Speech of Rev. Richard Watson, Exeter Hall, London-The spirit of Christianity and slaveholding-The dispositions and feelings enjoined on Christians opposed to slavery-Christ’s kingdom-The brotherhood of Christianity-The case of Demarara-Prayer and slavery not congruous-Quotation from ” Thoughts on Slavery,” by John Wesley-Two prayers given-A third-Stanza of poetry-Proceedings of some citizens of South Carolina against Dr. Brisbane-Slavery opposed to civilization and education-Remarks of Rev. William Bevan before the Antislavery Convention held at London, June, 1840…………………………………………….. 3 44 12

CONTENTS.

Page 13 view page image

PART I. AMERICAN SLAVERY AND THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE CONTRASTED.

Page 14 view page image

Page 15 view page image

SJ N F U L N E S S OF AMERICAN SLAVERY. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. 1. WE
will commence this treatise by defining the system of slavery: “A slave is a person divested of the ownership of himself, and conveyed, with all his powers of body and mind, to the proprietorship of another.” ” Slaveholding is detaining one in this condition, or keeping him subject to the laws of slavery; and the detainer is the slaveholder.” Or, a slaveholder is one who sustains the legal relation of master or owner of a slave. There are but two slaveholding powers in all countries where slavery exists by law-the master and the government. A slaveholding government is one which authorizes individuals to deprive their fellowmen of self-ownership. An individual slaveholder is one who subjects men to the laws of slavery, or who voluntarily holds slaves by law. 2. Slavery reduces men to articles of property; makes chattels out of free agents; converts persons into things.

But American slavery is best defined by quoting the laws which authorize and protect the system. In the civil or Roman laws, slaves were held “pro nullis; pro mortuis; pro quadrupedibus “-“as nothing; as dead; as quadrupeds.” The condition of slaves, in our slaveholding states, is little different or better, as far as laws are concerned, than under 15

Page 16 view page image

INTRODUCTION. the Roman laws. According to the laws of Louisiana, “a slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor: he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master.”-Civil code, art. 35. There is, indeed, in theory, a limitation to the master’s power in punishing the slave, yet no such limitation practically exists, or can, by law, be enforced. “The slave is entirely subject to the will of his master, who may correct or chastise him, though not with unusual rigor, or so as to maim or mutilate him to the danger or loss of life, or to cause death.”-Art. 173. (See Stroud, p.

22.) The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among things-is an article of property-chattel-obtains as undoubted law in all other slave states. In South Carolina it is expressed in the following language: “Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatever.” (Stroud, p. 23.) Absolute despotism could ask no more than this. 3. We will here set down what may be called the legal definition of slavery. We quote from Mr. Stroud’s excellent “Sketch of the laws relating to slavery,” Philadelphia, 1837, an authority which can not be called in question. He treats first of the laws which regard the slave as property; and concern the relation of master and slave. Secondly, those laws which consider the slave as a member of civil society. First. Those laws which regard the slave as property are comprised under the following twelve propositions: “1. The master may determine the kind, and degree, and time of labor, to which the slave may be subjected. 16

Page 17 view page image

INTRODUCTION. ” 2. The master may supply the slave with such food and clothing only, both as to quantity and quality, as he may think proper or find convenient. ” 3. The master may, at his discretion, inflict any punish ment upon the person of his slave. “4. All the power of the master over his slave may be exercised, not by himself only in person, but by any one whom he may depute as his agent. “5. Slaves have no legal rights of property in things real or personal; but whatever they may acquire belongs, in point of law, to their masters. “6. The slave, being a personal chattel, is, at all times, liable to be sold absolutely, or mortgaged or leased, at the will of his master. ” 7. He may also be sold by process of law for the satisfaction of the debts of a living, or the debts and bequests of a deceased master, at the suit of creditors or legatees. “8. A slave can not be a party before a judicial tribunal, in any species of action, against his master, no matter how atrocious may have been the injury received from him. “9. Slaves can not redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such change necessary for their personal safety. “10. Slaves being objects of property, if injured by third persons, their owners may bring suit, and recover damages, for the injury. “11. Slaves can make no contract. “12. Slavery is hereditary and perpetual.” The laws which refer to the slave as a member of civil society, Mr. Stroud, p. 65, for the sake of perspicuity, ranges under the following propositions: “1. A slave can not be a witness against a white person, either in a civil or criminal cause. “2. He can not be a party to a civil suit. “3. The benefits of education are withheld from the slave. 2* 17

Page 18 view page image

INTRODUCTION. ” 4. The means for moral and religious instruction are not granted to the slave; on the contrary, the efforts of the humane and charitable to supply these wants are discountenanced by law. “5.

Submission is required of the slave, not to the will of his master only, but to that of all other white persons. ” 6. The penal codes of the slaveholding states bear much more severely upon slaves than upon white persons. ” 7. Slaves are prosecuted and tried upon criminal accusations in a manner inconsistent with the rights of humanity.” The sum of these laws will comprehend the proper description or definition of slavery, much more clearly and fully than any definition, in abstract terms, can furnish. The legal enactments, by which alone slavery exists, will be the authoritative description of the slave system. To this we will continually refer, and by it we will be guided in the following chapters. 4. The judicial decisions upholding slavery, according to the statutes of slavery, and which are in keeping with these statutes, present a true picture of the system of slavery. The reported cases of judicial proceedings show how the law is practiced, and constitute the COMMON LAW of slavery. There are innumerable cases that might be quoted; but at this stage of the discussion we will introduce only two. The following is a part of a case decided by Judge Crenshaw:-(1 Stewart’s Reports, 320.) “A slave is in absolute bondage; he has no civil rights, and can hold no property, except at the will and pleasure of his master. A slave is a rational being, endowed with understanding like the rest of mankind; and whatever he lawfully acquires and gains possession of, by finding or otherwise, is the acquirement and possession of the master. And in 5 Cowen’s Reports, 397, the court held that a slave at common law could not contract matrimony, nor could the 18

Page 19 view page image

INTRODUCTION. child of a slave take by descent or purchase.” (Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, p. 7.) In the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in 1834, the follow ing case was decided: Frederick, a slave of Colonel Patton, of the North Carolina line, with his master’s consent, enlisted and fought through the war of the American Rev olution. On the 8th of August, 1821, as Frederick’s name was found in the muster-roll, a warrant was issued to Fred erick, giving him the soldier’s bounty of one thousand acres of land.

The question before the Court was, whether the land belonged to Frederick or to his master. Judge Catron’s decision is in these words: “Frederick, the slave of Colonel Patton, earned this warrant by his services in the continental line. What is earned by the slave belongs to the master, by the common law, the civil law, and the recognized rules of property in the slaveholding states of the Union.” Hence, the thousand acres of land were awarded, not to Frederick, but to the heirs of Colonel Patton. The matter is plain, that the legal decisions of courts, as well as the laws, make slaves things who can acquire or hold no property. 5. The practices and workings of slavery, in its range of operations, correspond to the statutes and legal decisions of the system, so as to show the sinfulness of slavery. In representative republics, as in the United States, the laws may be safely regarded as constituting a faithful exposition of the sentiments and feelings of the body of the people; for laws proceed from the deliberate acts of persons of mature age, embodying the intelligence, wisdom, justice, and humanity of the community. When cruelty or injustice is the spirit of the law toward a proscribed class-when it legalizes great outrages upon them-it necessarily will connive at greater outrages; hence, though the degree of the outrage is illegal, the perpetrator will rarely be 19

Page 20 view page image

INTRODUCTION. convicted, and, even if convicted, will almost always be sure to escape punishment. This is not theory, but history. The legal conviction and punishment of masters and mistresses, for illegal outrages on their slaves, very rarely occurs; and though hundreds of slaves have been murdered by their masters and mistresses, in the slave states, within the last thirty years, and the proofs of the murders unquestionable, yet the murderers, in all or most cases, have escaped the penalty of the law.

Indeed, the slave laws are a disgrace to human nature, especially when considered as the laws of a people glorying in their freedom, honor, and magnanimity. The system of slavery-a system of implacable and unmitigated cruelty as set forth in the laws which authorize and protect it, belongs to the lowest stage of barbarism. It is an established maxim, that no people are better titan their laws arc. In general this is true; yet there are exceptions in both extremes. Some are worse than their lawvs; others are better; but the body of the people must be of the same spirit and sentiment with their laws, except in the stages of transition from good to better, or from bad to worse. The establishment of slavery by laws does not make the system right; because God’s law, which is superior to all laws, condemns slavery as wrong; and God’s laws can not be repealed by the laws of man. Is it right to steal human beings, or-what is the same-rob them of their liberty, convert themn into property, treat them cruelly, because human laws allow or authorize this outrage? The history of human governments is a mere record of wrongs; and the progress of civilization consists principally of substituting just and humane for barbarous and oppressive laws. The authority of government, in ordaining slavery, as in ordaining other unjust things, is a reason for using all lawful means in correcting the evil. Besides, wrong done by 20

Page 21 view page image

INTRODUCTION. law or by society is amenable to the same retribution as wrong done by individuals. The Scriptures frequently declare this truth.

Thus, Psalm xciv, 20, “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellow ship with thee, which frameth mischief by a lawv?” So, also, Isaiah x, 1-4, “Woe unto them who decree unright eous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fath erless! And what will ye do in the days of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Persecu tion for the sake of religious opinion is always perpetrated by law; but this in no manner affects its moral character. 6. There is a difference between the system of slavery and some who are slaveholders by law. Some may, according to law, become slaveholders, without their knowledge, consent, or act. These are to be distinguished from those who voluntarily become slaveholders for gain or convenience. The one is guilty; the other is innocent. While the system of slavery, as it exists by law, is one of wrong, and necessarily involves sinfulness in connection with the system and inseparable from it, these two classes, equally slaveholders by law-the only way, in this country, by which a man can become a slaveholder-must be carefully distinguished. Some may become the legal owners of slaves by will or inheritance. Others, though convinced of the sinfulness of the system, may not have it in their power to set their slaves free, for the present, and they hold them in order to do them the greatest good possible. Such, certainly, can 21

Page 22 view page image

INTRODUCTION. not be placed in the list of transgressors or sinners; otherwise, one person, by his act, can make another a sinner; or one can be made a sinner by the act of another; which is absurd. Such employ the mere legal tenure to emancipate the slave, and prevent him from becoming a slave for life, and his posterity after him; or he employs this legal tenure to do the slave all the good he can, although he can not set him free. There are others who love slavery and the laws which authorize and protect it. They daily strive to render that law more stringent. They use their power over the slave for their own benefit, without regard to the rigrhts of man or the law of God; and they resist the annulment of slave laws. Here we have two classes of slavehlolders, but of the most dissimilar character. The one class acknowledge the wrongs and sinfulness of slavery, and do all in their power to do them away. The other class allow no law, human or divine, to interfere with the exercise of their tyrannical and unjust course. Between these extremes, however, there are many gradations of guiltiness, which, perhaps, can not be clearly pointed out, till the Judge-of all shall make known the true characters of men.

But the system of slavery, as established by law, is a sinful system. It is sinful in its origin, in its progress, and in its consequences. Like sin itself, it must be sinful, till the system is destroyed. If an individual would, by his own power and will, treat others as slaves, he must be a sinner of the worst class. When it is done by a state, the state is as chargeable with the sinfulness of the system as any individual can be who becomes a slaveholder by his own will and deed, and for his own sole benefit; and the very acts inseparable from the slave system, as the deprivation of rights-the infliction of wrongs-are acts of the most gross, immoral character. 22

Page 23 view page image

INTRODUCTION. The moral delinquency is not an accident or circumstance, but it is inherent in the system, and belongs to its very nature. It is not the abuse of slavery merely, but the very existence of it, that is wrong; and, consequently, there is only one way of dealing with it, and that is, not to correct or amend, but to extirpate it altogether, or, in other words, to destroy its very roots. 7. Most Christians consider slavery as wrong. The ex ceptions to this rule are very few when sophistry is stripped of its garb. Indeed, the most conscientious in all ages have viewed the system as one that is inconsistent with the principles of right, as well as contrary to the word of God. When slavery stands forth in its proper characters, few are found to palliate or justify it. To have an apologist at all, the true ground must be changed, and a false position as sumed. For instance, few are hardy enough to contend for stealing men, making merchandise of the stolen property, or for using it as such when obtained. And yet the very same thing is done every day, in “stealing children as soon as they are born;” that is, making them slaves. For they might as well be stolen from Africa as seized at birth by law as soon as born, and made slaves. It amounts to the same thing in fact, depriving a free person of liberty, and no more than this was done, and is now every day doing, in the African slavetrade. 8. There are now, however, some who maintain that slavery is not wrong. The present ground taken by the south is one of recent date. When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, there were few to plead for slavery. Now we find religious men-Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists-plead for the innocence of slavery, while politicians are now loud and long in its praises. We have many Presbyterians now pleading for the innocence of slavery. The presbyteries of Hopewell, Har 23 !

Page 24 view page image

INTRODUCTION. mony, and Charleston Union, in South Carolina, and the synod of Virginia, plead stoutly for the innocence of slavery. The following, from the Presbyterian Church in Petersburg, Va., 16th of November, 1838, may be quoted as a specimen of the general sentiment of southern Presbyterians: “Whereas, the General Assembly did, in 1818, pass a law which contains provisions for slaves irreconcilable with our civil institutions, and solemnly declared slavery to be a sin against God-a law at once offensive and insulting to the whole southern community: “Resolved, 1. That, as slaveholders, we can not consent longer to remain in connection with any Church where there exists a statute conferring a right upon slaves to arraign their masters before the judicatory of the Church, and that, too, for the act of selling them without their consent first had and obtained. “2. That, as the great Head of the Church has recognized the relation of master and slave, we conscientiously believe that slavery is not a sin against God, as declared by the General Assembly.” The Rev. Mr. James Smylie, a Presbyterian minister of the Amite presbytery, Mississippi, in his answer to the Chilicothe presbytery, maintains that slavery is no sin. We select the following from his book: “When the Scriptures teach me, or when any one will show me that the Scriptures do teach, that slavery, or the relation of master and slave, is sinful, then, as a minister, and as a Christian, I am pledged to forsake it,” p. 12. “If slavery be a sin, as you say, and if advertising and apprehending slaves, with a view to restore them to their master, is a direct violation of the Divine law; also, that the buying, selling, or holding a slave for the sake of gain is a heinous sin and scandal, then, verily, threefourths of all the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and 24

Page 25 view page image

INTRODUCTION. Presbyterians, in eleven states of the Union, are of the devil. They hold, if they do not buy and sell slaves; and, with few exceptions, they hesitate not to apprehend and restore runaway slaves, when in their power. To question, whether slaveholders or slave-buyers are of the devil, seems to me like calling in question, whether God is or is not a true witness; that is, provided it is God’s testimony, and not merely the testimony of the Chilicothe presbytery, that it is a heinous sin and scandal to buy, sell, or hold slaves,” p. 13. “I have, years ago, entered seriously on the investigation of the question, is slazery, in itself, sinful? and, on examination of the Scriptures and facts, as brought to light by history, I have arrived at a different conclusion from you. I have arrived at the conclusion, that slavery itself is not sinful,”

p. 16. “The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus clearly and unequivocally establishes the fact, that slavery, or bondage, was sanctioned by God himself; and that buying, selling, holding, and bequeathing slaves, as property, are regulations which were established by himself,” p. 21. “He [God] gave a written permit to the Hebrews-then the best people in the world-to buy, hold, and bequeath men and women to perpetual servitude,” p.

21. “Indeed, some of the very blessings, or favors, promised to the faithlful are the stations of masters,” p. 22. It were easy to extend the list of pro-slavery Presbyterian authorities, although the principles of the Confession certainly do not favor slavery. Among the Baptists we can find those who plead, that slavery is not sin. Dr. Fuller says: “I do deny that slavery is a moral evil,” Fuller and Wayland on Slavery, p. 1. “The Old Testament did sanction slavery,” p. 3. “I undertake to show, that the Bible does, most explicitly, both by precept and example, bear me out in my assertion-the only assertion I ever made-that slavery is not necessarily, and always, and 3 25

Page 26 view page image

INTRODUCTION. amidst all circumstances, a sin. This is the position to be cstablished; and the entire reasoning-reasoning which, if the premises be true, really seems to me to commend itself at once to every man’s conscience-is this: WHAT GOD SANCTIONED IN THE OLD TEST.AMENT AND

PERMITTED IN THE NEW CAN NOT BE SIN,” p. 170. Mr. Stringfellow, a distinguished Baptist, in a letter published in the Religious Herald of February 4, 1841-a Baptist paper-says: “If I am not greatly mistaken, I shall make it appear, that the institution of slavery has received, 1st, the sanction of the Almighty, in the patriarchal age; 2d, that it was incorporated into the only national constitution which ever emanated from God; 3d, that it was recognized, and its relative duties regulated by Jesus Christ, in his kingdom; and lastly, that it is full of mercy.” Again he says: “Here Lin Scripture] are laws that authorize the hlolding of men and women in bondage, and chastening them withl the whip of the slaveholder, with a severity that terminates in death.” He also declares: “The divine Lawg,iver, in guarding the property right of slaves among his chosen people, justifies the separation of man and wife-fither and children.” The Charleston (S. C.) Baptist association, in a memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, says: “The undersigned would further represent, that the said association does not consider that the holy Scriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all;” and further: “The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves has been distinctly recognized by the Creator of all things.” (See Correspondence of Birney and Elmore, p. 33.) Again: the Edgrefield (S. C.) Baptist association says: “Resolved, That the practical question of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a part of its stted policy, is settled, in the Scripture, by Jesus Christ and his apostles.

“1Resol,ed, That these uniformly recognized the relation 26

Page 27 view page image

INTIRODUCTION. of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective duties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than that which obtains in our country.” (Idem.) It is only a few years since that any Methodist was found to declare, that the system of slavery was not morally wrong. But some hleave recently commenced to imitate or follow the members of other Churches, and have waned from their original principles.

They seem, also, to have fallen in with the ranks of the pro-slavery politicians, renouncing the principles of their early days. The first avowal of this moral heterodoxy, of any importance, are the declarations and resolutions of the South Carolina and Georgia conferences, at their sessions in the winter of 1837 and ]838. The following are the preamble and resolutions of the Georgia conference, passed unanimously at its session held at Athens, Georgia, December 13, 1837: “Wlereas, there is a clause in the Discipline of our Church, which states that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery; and whereas the said clause has been perverted by some, and used in such a mannier as to produce the impression that the Methodist Episcopal Church believed slavery to be a moral evil; therefore, “1. Resolved, That it is the sense of the Georgia annual conference that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil. “2. Resolved, That we view slavery as a civil and domestic institution, and one with which, as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to do, farther than to ameliorate the condition of the slave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign influence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven.” The South Carolina conference, at its session held in Columbia, South Carolina, January 10, 1838, had the following action on the subject of slavery, introduced by the 27

Page 28 view page image

INTRODUCTION. Rev. W. Martin. The proceedings are given as published in the Southern Christian Advocate: “Brother Donelly approved of the doctrine of the resolutions, but remarked on the inconsistency of any action of conference on a subject which was avowed to be foreign from its province.

He also brought to view the mischievous use which might be made of it in some parts of the country, where some sought to take up the time, and pervert the business of conference, with debates of abolition. Brother W.

Capers expressed a conviction that the sentiment of the resolution was universally held, not only by the ministers of this conference, but of the whole south. Still, he acknowledged the force of the remark made by brother Donelly, and would willingly do nothing which might ever be perverted to a pretext for the mischievous discussions which were going on in another quarter. The doctrine, and the only true doctrine, was,‘It belongs to Caesar, and not to the Church.’ But the subject, right or wrong, had got into the Church. He would suggest to the mover of these resolutions, whether it might not be better, all things considred, to adopt the following substitute: “‘WVhereas, we hold that the subject of slavery, in the United States, is not one proper for the action of the Church, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil authorities; therefore, “‘Resolved, That this conference will not intermeddle with it, farther than to express our regret that it has ever been introduced, in any form, into any one of the judicatures of the Church.’ “Brother Martin accepted the substitute. Brother Betts asked whether the substitute was intended as implying that slavery, as it exists amnong us, was not a moral evil. lIe understood it as equivalent to such a declaration. Brother Capers explained, that his intention was to convey that sentiment fully and unequivocally; and that he had chosen the 28

Page 29 view page image

INTRODUCTION. form of substitute for the purpose, not only of reproving some wron?y doings at the nort/h, but with reference, also, to the General conference. If slavery were a moral evil [that is, sinful] tIhe CAurch would be bound to take cognizance of it; but our affirmation is that it is not a matter for her jurisdiction, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil gov ernment, and, of course, not sinful. The substitute was then unanimously adopted.” After the South Carolina and Georgia conferences, the most prominent advocate for slavery is the Rev. Augustus B.

Longstreet, LL. D., in an octavo pamphlet of forty seven pages, addressed to Doctors Durbin, Bangs, Peck, and Elliott, Charleston, South Carolina, 1845. We select from this pamphlet the following astounding sentiments: “Only convince us that God forbids the relationship of master and slave-nay, only give us a satisfactory answer to the arguments which we adduce from Scripture to show that he sanctions it-and all the wounds of our Church will be healed in an instant,” p. 5. “What you believe to be sinful, we believe to be perfectly innocent,” p. 6. “It [Paul’s Epistle to Philemon] recognizes the relationof master and slave as perfectly innocent,” p. 9. In Dr. Longstreet’s letter to Dr. Durbin, in the Southern Christian Advocate of December 26, 1845, he perempto’ily denies the sinfulness of slavery. He says, “A brother and myself had referred to the Scripturcs to prove that slavery was no sin.” The following is the declared opinion of Rlev. E. D. Simms, of Randolph Macon College: (See Barnes, p. 29.) “These extracts from holy writ unequivocally assert the right of property in slaves, together wvithl the usual incidents of that right, such as the power of acquisition and disposition in various ways, according to municipal regulations. The ri ght to bu y or sell, and to transmit to children by way of inheritance, is clearly stated. The only restric 3* 29

Page 30 view page image

INTRODUCTION. tioni on the subject, is in refercnce to the market in which slaves or bondmen were to be purchased. “Upon the whole, then, whether we consult the Jewvishl polity, instituted by God himself, or the uniform opinion and practice of mankind in all ages of the world, or the injunctions of the New Testament and the moral law, we are brought to the conclusion that slavery is not immoral. Having established the point, that the first African slaves were legally brought into bondage, the right to detain their children in bondage follows as an indispensable consequence.

“Thus we see that the slavery which exists in America was founded in right.” Within the last few years the innocence of the system of slavery has been asserted, with great earnestness, by soutlhern statesmen. We will give a few specimens. After the Southampton insurrection in 1831, the eyes of the southern people were, for a short while, opened to the horrors of slavery. Hence, a strong abolition party arose in Virginia. Slavery was freely discussed in the Legislature of that state. At this time, to calm the consciences of slaveholders, Thomas R. Dew, a professor in William and Mary College, wrote a pamphlet in favor of slavery, and ” boldly grappled with the abolitionists on the great question.” Mr. Dew maintained that the system of slavery was not sinful. He also appealed to the cupidity of the people. He shows that negro slaves are the great staple of Virg,inia, inasmuch as “upward of six thousand are yearly exported to other states.”

So that Virginia receives friom the sale of human beings not less than $1,200,000 every year. In the professor’s own words, “Virginia is, in fact, a negro-raising state for other states. She produces enough for her own supply, and six thousand [annually] for sale.” He also declares “the slaves in Virginia multiply more rapidly than in most of the southern states; the Virginians can raise them cheaper than they can buy them; in 30

Page 31 view page image

INTRODUCTION. fact, it is one of their greatest sources of profit.” Mr.

Dew first published in the Ameiican Quarterly, and then, with much enlargement, in a pamphlet, one hundred and thirty three largei pages, in Richmond. (See Bacon on Slavery, p. 94.) Mr. M’Duffie, Governor of South Carolina, in his message to the Legislature in 1834, declares as follows: “No human institution, in my opinion, is more manifestly consistent with the will of God than domestic slavery, and no one of his ordinances is written in more legible charac ters than that which consigns the African race to this condi tion, as more conducive to their own happiness than any other of which they are susceptible. “Domestic slavery, therefore, instead of being a political evil, is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.

No patriot, who justly estimates our privileges, will tolerate the idea of emancipation at any period, however remote, or on any conditions of pecuniary advantage, however favorable. I would as soon open a negotiation for selling the liberty of the state at once, as of making any stipulations for the ultimate emancipation of our slaves. So deep is my conviction on this subject, that, if I were doomed to die immediately after recording these sentiments, I could say, in all sincerity, and under all the sanctions of Christianity and patriotism,’ God forbid that my descendants, in the remotest generations, should live in any other than a community having the institution of domestic slavery, as it existed among the patriarchs of the primitive Church, and in all the states of antiquity.’” (See Quarterly Antislavery Magazine for January, 1836, p.

208.) MIr. Calhoun is reported, in the National Intelligencer, as having delivered, on the 10th of January, 1836 or 1837, in the senate, these words: “Many in the south once believed that it [slavery] was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. 31

Page 32 view page image

INTRODUCTION. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.” Mr. Hammond, on February 1, 1836, declared, in Congress: “I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest-toned, the purest, the best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth.” The Hon. Whitemarsh B. Seabrook, President of the Agricultural Society of St. John’s, Colleton, in his essay on the management of slaves, published by order of the Society, Charleston, 1834, declares as follows: (See Antislavery Quarterly for 1836, p. 123.) “In the first place, I must be permitted to say, that, in the judgment of my fellow-citizens, slavery is not inconsistent with the laws of nature, or of God. The Bible informs us, that it was established and sanctioned by Divine authority among even the elects of heaven; and the history of every age and country attests that personal servitude has been the lot of a considerable portion of mankind. I believe, moreover, that, successfully to carry on the great business of the world, slavery, in some form, is as necessary as the division of labor itself. “As slavery exists in South Carolina, the action of the citizens should rigidly conform to that state of things. If abstract opinions of the rights of man are allowed in any instance to modify the police system of a plantation, the authority of the master, and the value of his estate, will be as certainly impaired, as that the peace of the blacks themselves will be injuriously affected.

Whoever believes slavery to be immoral or illegal, and, under that belief, frames a code of laws for the government of his people, is practically an enemy of the state. Such a person is utterly unfit to fulfill the obligation of his trust, and the most acceptable service he could render his fellow-citizens, would be to 32

Page 33 view page image

INTRODUCTION. emigrate with his property to the land of the Tappans and the Garrisons.” 9. Although our purpose is to survey the moral character of slavery, yet we may not overlook those civil or political features of the system which involve morals or right principles. We transcribe the following from Dr. Wayland’s second letter to Dr. Fuller: ” The terms moral evil may be used to designate two ideas widely dissimilar from each other, and depending upon entirely different principles. In the one sense, it means wrong-the violation of the relations which exist between the parties-the transgression of a moral law of God. In the other sense, it means the personal guilt which attaches to the being who does the wrong, violates the obligation, or transgresses the law. In the first sense, moral evil depends upon the immutable relations which God has established between his moral creatures. In the second sense, meaning personal guilt, it depends upon the light, the knowledge of duty, means of obtaining information on the subject, and may be different in different persons and at different times. In the first sense, when we affirm that slavery is not a moral evil, we affirm that to hold a man in slavery, as it has been above explained, is right, that it violates no law of God, and is at variance with no moral relation existing between man and man.” The distinction given above has much of truth in it. Nevertheless, it needs to be duly guarded, so that what may be ascribed to pardonable ignorance or prejudice, may not be properly attributed to a culpable ignorance which has no palliation in the word of God. And we fear Dr. Wayland, in his answer to Fuller, gives a degree of encouragement to a very large class of slaveholders to continue in willful ignorance, or to be governed by mere customs and usages, which are most clearly repugnant to the word of God.

And it is most true, that whatever of palliation may 33 L 

Page 34 view page image

INTRODUCTION. be admitted on behalf of the prejudiced slaveholder, the grossly sinful and immoral character of slavery can receive no palliation so as to strip it of its essential sinfulness, which it inherently possesses, and is not susceptible of reform, any more than murder, theft, or lying, in their true characteristics, can be reformed. The reformation of slavery would be its destruction. 10. We will test the character of slavery by the standard of holy Scripture. As we treat of slavery only in its moral character, the standard by which we are to judge of its moral qualities is the moral laws of God as contained in holy Scripture, forbidding all sin and enjoining every duty relating to God and man. The following are the reasons why we bring slavery to the test of holy Scripture: (1.) The Bible is the standard of morals, and to this standard every other authority should be subservient. (2.) Slavery is a subject on which the Bible has legislated, and therefore it is most fit to ascertain what are its decisions on the subject. (3.) Hence there is no other standard than the Bible, by which the question whether slavery is right or wrong can be denied. (4.) Any other standard than Scripture can never effect a reform on the subject of slavery. (5.) The defenders of slavery now claim the authority of the Bible in favor of slavery, and therefore it is proper to meet them on this ground. (See Barnes on Slavery, pp. 21-37.) As our discussion is in reference to the moral character of slavery, and especially as it concerns Christians as Christians, the suprenme rule of duty must be the moral law of God as contained in Scripture, but not the civil law. If the civil law were the supreme rule, it would not admit the 34

Page 35 view page image

INTRODUCTION. moral law to have any authority, further than it might be subservient to the civil law. Still it may be a point too nice for decision here, how far the obligations of the civil code may be relaxed by the supreme law of God. This we will not just now attempt to do. But, as we are addressing the consciences of men on Christian principles, we must main tain the complete supremacy of God’s laws over all pre scriptions of men. The true doctrine is that none, whether a majority or minority in the state, have any right to trample on the divine, or natural rights of others, in any way. If they do, they are accountable to God for the abuse of their power, and will be punished for this abuse here or hereafter.

Nations shall be punished as nations, in this world only, and individuals as individuals, both in this world and the world to come. 11. It may be proper to inquire here, what persons are included under the denomination of slaves. In an act of Maryland in the year 1663, chapter 30, it is declared, “All negroes or other slaves within the province, and all negroes and other slaves to be hereafter imported into the province, shall serve durante vita, [during lije;] and all children born of any negro or other slave, shall be slaves as their fathers were for the term of their lives.” And all children of white free women and negro slaves, were also doomed to slavery, although this clause was subsequently repealed. The doctrine that “partus sequitur patre1i “-the offspring follows the condition of the fatherobtained in the province of Maryland till the year 1699 or 1700. In the year 1715 the following law was passed in Maryland: “All negroes and other slaves already imported or hereafter to be imported into this province, and all children now born, and hereafter to be born, of such negroes and slaves, shall be slaves during their natural lives.”

Thus was the maxim of the civil law-“partus sequitur ventrem” 35

Page 36 view page image

INTRODUCTION, introduced, and the condition of the mother, from that day up to the present time, has continued to determine the fate of the child.

This barbarous and heathen maxim of the civil law-the genuine and degrading principle of slavery, placing the slave on a level with the brute animals-prevails universally in the slave states. The following law of South Carolina has been adopted, in substance, by the other slave states: ” 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 and offspring, born or to be born, shall be and they are hereby declared to be and remain forever hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother.” By this law, any person whose maternal ancestor, even in the remotest distance, can be shown to have been a negro, or an Indian, or a mulatto, or mestizo, not free at the date of the law, although the paternal ancestor at each successive generation may have been a white free man, is declared to be the subject of perpetual slavery. This is a degree of cruelty and avarice unknown in any other civilized country. The following are the distinctions usually known among the mixed races: 1. The mulattoes, derived from the intermixtures of the whites and negroes. 2. The terceroons, being threefourths white, produced from a white and mulatto. 3. The quadroons, produced from a white and a terceroon, being seven-eighths white. 4. The quintroons, being fifteen-sixteenths white, who owe their origin to a white and a quadroon.

This is the last gradation, there being no sensible difference between them and the whites, either in color or features. Yet even these, and their descendants to the remotest generations, are deemed slaves. And the advertisements for runaways sometimes note that the runaway has sometimes been taken for a white man. Very 36

Page 37 view page image

INTRODUCTION. many of the slaves of the present day are properly white persons. And as nearly all the colored slaves are the children of white fathers, a very large number of the slaves of the south are the children, grandchildren, or descend ants of these white masters, who have continued, generation after generation, to enslave their own progeny and the progeny of their own fathers, grandfathers, and remote an cestors! Indians, too, may be held as slaves; but the cases of such are now so few, that, for our purpose, it is unnecessary to take this class of slaves into the account.

By the laws of many of the slave states, persons now free may become slaves. In Virginia, “if any emancipated slave, infants excepted, shall remain within the state more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right, and may be apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor for the benefit of the literary fund.” In Georgia, a penalty of $100 is incurred by any free person of color for coming into the state; and “upon failure to pay the same within the time prescribed in the sentence, etc., he, she, or they shall be liable to be sold by public outcry as a slave.” In MIississippi, every negro or mulatto found within the state, and not having the ability to prove himself entitled to freedom, may be sold, by order of the court, as a slave. 12. The present ground of the south is very different from what it was at the time of the American Revolution, and many years after. Few, if any, were then found to apologize for, much less maintain slavery. Neither the pulpit nor the press had any arguments to adduce for enslaving men. But the evil practice, in time, produced the justifying theories of recent years. Now grave divines teach that there is nothing immoral in enslaving men. That is, they may be stolen, or robbed, deprived of ail their just rights, and unjustly punished with many grievous wrongs; and all 4 37

Page 38 view page image

INTRODUCTION. this has no moral evil in it! Times are changed, and mutable human beings change with the evil practices. Yet the truth remains, and will yet revolutionize the evil maxims and customs of the times. 38

Page 39 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. CHAPTER II. MORAL IDENTITY OF THE AFRICAN

SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. 1. AMERICAN slavery is morally wrong or sinful in its origin-the African slavetrade; and this wrong is still con tinued in maintaining the present system, and is inseparable from it. The African slavetrade has been pronounced piracy by the United States, and the greater part of the civilized world. And piracy, because of its immoral and sinful character, is one of the most atrocious systems in the world.

Therefore, the African slavetrade is highly immoral, in all its leading characteristics. Hence, it is pronounced a capital crime-the same with murder in the first degree, or high treason, because it is punished with the greatest penalty, even that of death. Now, it can be shown that American slavery partakes of atrocities sinuilar or equal to those of the African slavetrade; and it must, therefore, receive the same sentence of condemnation. It is not necessary, in order to arrive at this conclusion, that we can find all the evils of the slavetrade, or those even in the same degree, in the system of American slavery. It is sufficient that we find enough to show a clear characteristic identity, whether we find the same number of atrocities, or find them in a greater or less degree. 2. A very brief survey of the origin of the trade may not be amiss. Long before the discovery of America, the celebrated Portuguese navigator, Anthony Gonzales, in exploring the coast of Africa, had seized and carried home with him some Moors. These, however, Prince Henry, of Portugal, immediately ordered to be returned to their country. As an expression of gratitude, the Moors sent over to Portugal ten 39

Page 40 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF TIIE blacks and a quantity of gold. This gave rise to the traffic in slaves by the Portuguese, and led to their African discoveries. But, while Portugal became the importers in the trade, Spain soon partook of the system in purchasing from the Portuguese. Hence, both Portuguese and Spaniards, by their home slaves, were prepared to introduce the system into America. In 1502 some slaves were taken to Hispaniola. In 1511 Ferdinand the Catholic allowed a large importation. But these were private and partial speculations. Charles V, in 1517, however, being pressed on the one hand by the demand for labor in the American settlements, and on the other by Las Casas and others, who pleaded that the Africans should be introduced into America to relieve the Indians from slavery, granted to one of the Flemish courtiers the exclusive privilege of importing four thousand blacks to the West Indies. The Fleming sold his privilege for 25,000 ducats, or about $25,000, to some Genoese merchants, who organized a regular slavetrade between Africa and America. As the European settlements in America increased and extended, the demand for slaves also increased; and all European nations, who had colonies in America, shared in the slavetrade. It was about 1551 that the English began trading to Guinea; at first for gold and elephants’ teeth, but soon after for men. In 1556 Sir John Hawkins sailed with two ships to Cape Verd, where he sent eighty men on shore to catch negroes. But the natives flying, they fell farther down, and Mr. Hawkins set his men on shore to “burn their towns and take the inhabitants.” But they were repulsed by the natives, and lost seven men, and took only ten negroes. But he continued his depredations, and succeeded in obtaining a cargo, which he sold in the West Indies. Shortly after the trade set in for the British colonies. 40

Page 41 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. Even then, this traffic in human beings smote the con sciences of many of those concerned in it. Charles V seems to have repented of the countenance which he gave to this wicked and sinful procedure. Pope Leo X, his co temporary, denounced the system, and declared “that not only the Christian religion, but nature itself, cried out against a state of slavery.” Louis XIII, of France, was much troubled in conscience about the traffic in slaves; but his scruples were allayed by the argument, that it furnished an opportunity to convert them to Christianity. Queen Elizabeth, who, deceived by Sir John Hawkins, cautioned him not to carry the Africans to America without their consent, said “it would be detestable, and would call down the vengeance of Heaven on the undertaking.” But, notwithstanding these early scruples, the Christians of Europe entered largely into the profitable commerce, wicked as it was. And the Christians of America received the stolen goods, and, in time, commenced the work of importation too. The trade was so lucrative, that the minds of the traders became so blunted to the feelings of justice, and so extensively did this spread, that it became a common branch of trade by the Christian nations of Europe and America. 3. In order to have a correct idea of the African slavetrade, we must consider in what manner slaves are procured in Africa, how they are conveyed to America, and how they are disposed of and treated when they arrive. (1.) How are the slaves procured in Africa? The following seem to be the modes by which the slaves were procured. Some were procured by the fraud of the white Christians. Captains of ships, from time to time, have inv-ited negroes to come on board, and then seized them and carried them away. But they were mostly, after the frauds became unsuccessful, procured by force by the whites. The Christians 4* 41

Page 42 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE landing on their coasts, seized as many as they foundmen, women, and children-and transported them to America. When force and fraud had done their best, in the work of enslaving, the Europeans excited the Africans to make war on each other, and to sell their prisoners. Until then, it is said, they seldom had wars, but were, in general, quiet and peaceable; but the white man first taught them drunkenness and avarice, and then hired them to sell one another. By this means kings sell their own subjects, often having taken them by surprise.

Others make depredations on the territories of others, and take the people, and sell them to the whites. Some of the slaves purchased were stolen. “Many little blacks, of both sexes, are stolen away by their neighbors, when found abroad in the road, or in the woods, or else in the cornfields, at the time of year when their parents keep them there all day, to scare away the devouring birds.” Thus, the slaves were procured in these four ways: 1. By fraud of the Christians, who decoyed them, and then took them away; 2. By force, when they seized them in their own territories, then took them away, and sold them; 3. The whites purchased those that had been taken captives by war; 4. Or they purchased those who were stolen by others. Can we say, that no moral turpitude attaches to those who engage in the enormities which take place in procuring slaves in Africa? Is not that man made morally worse, who is induced to become a tiger to his species? or who, instigated by avarice, lies in wait in the market to seize his fellow-man? Is there no injustice, where the prince seizes his innocent subjects, and sells them for slaves? Does no crime attach to those who accuse others falsely, or who multiply crimes for the sake of the profit of the punishment? Now, if these things are so, how can the very same 42

Page 43 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. thing, though done in a different manner, be innocent in America? The act done, both in America and in Africa, is, to seize an innocent person, by force, fraud, or law, deprive him of his liberty, and sell him for a slave. Wherein does the American slave-breeding, the sales by the master, the purchasers of these, the barracoons of the District of Columbia, of Virginia, and Maryland, the slave gangs by land or the same by sea, the auctions, parents selling their children, grandchildren, brothers, parting of parents and children, husband and wife, the seizure, and advertising, and sale of free negroes, and all the other indescribable and undescribed enormities of the system-we ask, wherein do the sins of the capture, detention, and sales of Africa exceed the sins of Christian America, which, with its Bibles, churches, Christians, army, navy, police, laws, usages, and habits, systematically, deliberately, openly, and unblushingly sustains the present system of slavery? Let conscience and an enlightened judgment decide the question. (2.) Their passage across the Atlantic. This is the noted “middle passage.” When they are brought down to the African shore to be sold, the white surgeons examine them, mostly naked, women and men, without any distinction. Those approved are set apart by themselves. A hot iron marks them with the arms or name of the company to which they belong.

They are then stowed away in the ships, naked, men and women together, and crowded into as little room as possible, and most of them shackled. Many die in the passage. Many more die at the different islands, in what is called the seasoning. Thus about from one-fifth to one-third die in the passage or by the seasoning. And do those experience no corruption of their nature, or become chargeable with no violation of rights, who engage in this traffic? and can their hearts be otherwise than hardened, who are familiar with the tears and groans of innocent strangers, when torn from their country, and who see them on 43

Page 44 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE hoard their vessels, in a state of suffocation, and in the agonies of despair? and how can the American slaveholder be engaged in the same or similar acts, connected with the commerce in slaves in neighborhoods and between the states? (3.) When the vessels arrive at their destined port, the negroes are again exposed, naked, for the most part, to the eyes of all that flock together, and the examination of purchasers. The slave markets are very like cattle markets. The negroes are there examined like a horse, as to the sound ness of limb and capabilities for toil. They are exposed to the competitions of purchasers, sold to the highest bidder, and turned over to oppressive labor, under the excitement of the whip. In this traffic parents and children, husbands and wives are separated without the least scruple; and they and their offspring are destined to a cruel bondage to endless ages. Now, follow these, and see them laboring for the benefit of those to whom they are under no obligation, by any law, natural or divine, to obey. If they disobey the commands of their purchasers, however weary, feeble, or indisposed, they are subject to corporeal punishment, and, if forcibly resisting them, to death. Their spirits must be broken and subdued. They are subject to such individual persecution as anger, malice, or any bad passion may suggest: hence the whip, the chain, the iron collar, and the various modes of private torture; and though these cruelties may be against even the slave laws, as they can not be witnessed, they must be suffered without redress; and finally, their innocent offspring are subject to the same treatment. And can all this be done without sin? and surely it is done constantly in practical American slavery. And who can show the difference, in reality, between this and the African slavetrade, except that some of the modes of doing the one may be more cruel than those employed in another? The distinc 44 r,

Page 45 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. tion is something like what occurs in willful murder: some may kill at once, by one blow, or the discharge of a rifle; while another may, in a more inhuman way, really butcher his victim; but in both cases it is murder. A member of Congress for Massachusetts thus describes the home traffic: ” The number of slaves annually sold from the more north ern slave states to the southwest is believed to be not less than forty thousand, yielding-as they are assorted lots $25,000,000. The sale of forty thousand men, women, and children is easily spoken of. It is dispatched in a period. But what an untold and indescribable aggregation and com plication of wretchedness does it represent! Each of those forty thousand was a father or mother, brother or sister, hus band or wife, with heart-strings to be wrung by separation from kindred, and all that from infancy had been loved. The foreign slavetrade is infamy unredeemed. He who sells or buys a negro to be carried from Guinea to Louisiana is a pirate, by the law of the civilized nations. When we catch him we hang him, and his name, being that of the wicked, rots. What is the difference between the man who sells from a Guinea barracoon and from a Virginia plantation? What is the difference between the master of the slave-ship and the driver of the slave-caravan?

What is the difference to the poor, outcast sufferer, whether he is transported by sea or land? He is spared the terrible tortures of the middle passage; but the hardships are extreme under the convoy of the land-pirate, and a large per centage of deaths take place. Compared with the savage Guinea native, the Virginia negro is a being of sensibility and refinement. His domestic affections are more human. His home-harsh home as it has been-is dearer. How is it, that the nation, so proudly and talkatively virtuous about the foreign slavetrade, is so easy and content with the domestic?” 45

Page 46 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE We may next consider more particularly the traits of character common to the African slavetrade and the present system of American slavery. 4. The present system of American slavery reduces free persons to slavery. We give, as instances, the three following cases: (1.) Children are constantly reduced to slavery; and the children of American slaves are just as innocent as the children of native Africans. We maintain, then, that the enslaving of children, whether those of slaves or of free persons, is not one whit better than the enslavement of Africans by the slavetrade. It is true, the mode of accomplishing it may be different, but the wrong inflicted on the sufferer is the same. The arguments against this enslaving of children, whether they are the children of slaves or others, are reserved for the next chapter. (2.) Many free persons, by the operation of the slave laws, are reduced to a state of slavery. In consequence of rejecting the evidence of colored persons, kidnapping is easy and even common, notwithstanding severe penalties may be enacted against it. In the two years previous to 1827 more than thirty free colored persons, mostly children, were kidnapped in the city of Philadelphia, and carried away south. Five of these, at great expense and difficulty, have been restored to their friends. The others were never restored to freedom. Thus, manstealing is a branch of the present system of slavery. (3.) Many manumitted persons are re-enslaved by the action of the slave laws. By the laws of several of the slaveholding states manumitted and other free persons of color may be arrested, and if documentary evidence of their freedom be not produced, they are thrown into prison, and advertised as runa ways. Should no one prove ownership, within a limited time, the jailer is directed to sell them to the highest bidder, 46

Page 47 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. in order to pay the jail fees. Thus the freeman and his posterity are doomed forever to hopeless bondage. “FREE

NEGROES.-The Legislature of Alabama have passed an act, prescribing, that every free person of color arriving in that state, on board a vessel as cook, steward, mariner, or in any other employment, shall be immediately lodged in prison, and detained till the departure of said vessel, when the captain thereof shall be bound, under a heavy penalty, to take him away.

If any free person of color, thus sent away, shall return, he or she shall receive thirtynine lashes; and if found within the state twenty days after such punishment, he or she shall be sold as a slave for any term not exceeding one year. The captain of any vessel, in which such free person of color shall arrive, shall give security in the sum of $2,000, that he will take away the said free person of color. The sixth section makes it lawful for any person to seize, and make a slave for life, to his own use, any free person of color who may come into the state of Alabama after the first day of February, 1842; provided this section shall not take effect till the first day of August next. The seventh section makes it lawful for any person to seize upon and make a slave for life any free person of color who may be found in the state of Alabama after the passage of this act, and who shall have come into the state since its passage. Approved February 2, 1839.” (Lannaman.) (4.) Any one who will take the pains to examine the advertisements in the southern papers, will see scores of notices which show that the process of enslaving manumitted persons is conducted openly, under the protection and by the authority of law. Thus, as the African slavetrade constantly reduces innocent free persons to slavery, and assumes its piratical and felonious character from this act, so the system of American slavery, by enslaving the children of slaves, and free 47

Page 48 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF TItIE persons of color, and by re-enslaving manumitted persons, must also be piratical and felonious as to moral character. The injustice in the one case is as great as the other. And he or she who voluntarily enslaves innocent children must rank with the manstealer, and the trafficker in the African slavetrade. 5. Slave-raising is a notable source of slavery, and is a substitute for the African slavetrade. As this is properly rather a delicate subject, we will hear what southern men themselves have to say on it, and what, too, they have said publicly, and has been printed. Judge Upshur, in 1829, in the Virginia Convention, said: “The value of slaves as an article of property depends much on the state of the market abroad; nothing is more fluctuating than the value of slaves. A late law of Louisiana reduced their value twentyfive per cent.

If it be our lot, as I trust it will be, to acquire Texas, their price will rise again.” Mr. Mercer, in 1829, in the Convention, said: “The tables of the natural growth of the slave population demonstrate, when compared with the increase of its numbers in the commonwealth for twenty years past, that an annual revenue of not less than a million and a half of dollars is derived from the exportation of a part of the population.”

(Debates, p. 199.) Hon. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, in his speech before the Colonization Society, in 1829, says: “It is believed that no where in the farming portion of the United States would slave labor be generally employed, if the proprietor were not tempted to raise slaves by the high price of the southern market, which keeps it up in his own.” Mr. Gholson, of Virginia, in his speech in the Legislature of that state, January 18, 1831, said: “It has always-perhaps erroneously-been considered by steady and old-fashioned people, that the owner of land had a reasonable right 48

Page 49 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. to its annual profits, the owner of orchards to their annual fruits, the owner of breed mares to their product, and the owner of female slaves to their increase. The legal maxim of partus sequitur ventrem, is coeval with the existence of the rights of property itself, and is founded in wisdom and justice. It is on the justice and inviolability of this maxim that the master foregoes the service of the female slave, has her nursed and attended during the period of her gestation, and raises the helpless infant offspring. The value of the property justifies the expense; and I do not hesitate to say, that in its increase consists much of our wealth.” lion. J. M. Randolph, of Virginia, in his speech before the Legislature, in 1832, said, concerning the number sold out of Virginia to the more southern states, “The exportationI has averaged eight thousand five hundred for the last twenty years. Forty years ago, the whites exceeded the colored twentyfive thousand; the colored now exceed the whites eighty-one thousand; and these results, too, during an exportation of near two hundred and sixty thousand slaves since the year 1790, now perhaps the fruitful progenitors of half a million in other states. It is a practice, and an increasing practice, to rear slaves for market. How can an honorable mind, a patriot, and a lover of his country, bear to see this ancient dominion converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for market, like oxen for the shambles?” Professor Dew, in his review of the debate in the Virginiat Legislature, 1831-32, says, p. 49, “From all the information we can obtain, we have no hesitation in saying that upward of six thousand [slaves] are yearly exported [from Virginia] to other states.” Again, p.

61, “The six thousand slaves which Virginia annually sends off to the south are a source of wealth to Virginia.” Again, p. 120, “A full equivalent being thus left in the place of the slave, this emigration becomes an advantage to the state, and does not 5 49

Page 50 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE check the black population as much as, at first view, we might imagine-because it furnishes every inducement to the master to attend to the negroes, to encourage breeding, and to cause the greatest number possible to be raised. Virginia is, in fact, a negro-raising state for other states.” The following is from Niles’ Weekly Register, published at Baltimore, Md., vol. 35, p. 4: “Dealing in slaves has become a large business; establishments are made in several places in Maryland and Virginia, at which they are sold like cattle; these places of deposit are strongly built, and well supplied with thumb-screws and gags, and ornamented with cow-skins and other whips, oftentimes bloody.” The editor of the Virginia Times, published in Wheeling, in 1836, said: “We have heard intelligent men estimate the number of slaves exported from Virginia within the last twelve months, at one hundred and twenty thousand-each slave averaging at least $600-making an aggregate of $72,000,000. Of the number of slaves exported, not more than one-third have been sold-the others having been carried by their owners, who have removed-which would leave in the state the sum of $24,000,000 arising from the sale of slaves.” The Natchez (Miss.) Courier says “that the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, imported two hundred and fifty thousand slaves from the more northern states in the year 1836.” The Baltimore American gives the following from a Mississippi paper of 1837: “The report made by the committee of the citizens of Mobile, appointed at their meeting held on the first instant, on the subject of the existing pecuniary pressure, states, among other things, that purchases by Alabama of that species of property from other states, since 1833, have amounted to about $10,000,000 annually.” The Rev. Dr. Graham, of Fayetteville, N.

C., at a colonization meeting, held in that place in the fall of 1837, said: 50

Page 51 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. “He had resided for fifteen years in one of the largest slaveholding counties in the state, had long and anxiously considered the subject, and still it was dark. There were nearly seven thousand slaves offered in the New Orleans market last winter. From Virginia alone six thousand were annually sent to the south; and from Virginia and North Carolina there had gone, in the same direction, in the last twenty years, three hundred thousand slaves.” The New Orleans Courier, February 15, 1839, speaking of the prohibition of the African slavetrade, while the internal slavetrade is plied, says: “The United States law may, and probably does, put millions into the pockets of the people living between the Roanoke and Mason and Dixon’s line; still we think it would require some casuistry, to show that the present slavetrade from that quarter is a whit better than the one from Africa.”*

In the grain-growing portions of the slave states, espe cially in the older states, growing of slaves seems to be the principal pecuniary advantage of slavery. Hence, as a natural result of the system of slavery, slave-raising has become the common method of profit. Some affect to deny this, as Mr. Stevenson, the American minister, did in England, in 1838.

But the fact is so well established, and so general, that it can neither be denied nor concealed, however much to be deplored. Perhaps very few slaveholders make selection of their negro stock for this vile purpose; yet there are some who do so, with the aim of having the young stock of as light a skin as possible, in order to secure higher prices. Many, too, of the young slaves are the children or grandchildren, or brothers and sisters of their owners. Add to all these abominations, that the greater number of these are illegitimate children, so that the bond of matrimony is * Those who would wish to see more such authorities quoted are referred to ” American Slavery As It Is,” by Weld, New York, 1839, pp. 18-184. 51

Page 52 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE little known in this shameful commerce, and this accursed custom of slave-raising is worse than, or at least as bad as the African slavetrade itself. And if it be not sinful and wicked, as well as shameful and brutal, there is no such thing as sin in the world. And this abominable thing has been the result of American slavery, and is now a component part of it, and inseparable from it. This most hateful and polluting practice is now become as notorious as any thing, else can be, and no one in the United States, or in the civilized world, can live without becoming acquainted with this outrage on the decorum of society.

And can any Christian who knows these things to be true-and all such know it-be content to live a day without endeavoring to destroy slavery, the parent of this crying-out sin? 6. Slavetrading, between the states presents traits of character as bad as some belonging to the African slavetrade, and common to both. Between the African and domestic slavetrade there is a very strong resemblance in the manner of procuring negroes for market, the mode of transferring them to their destined places of designation, and the manner of disposing of and treating them in their new houses of bondage. The slavetrader, with his assistants, traverses the country, among the plantations, and in the towns, in search of the surplus negroes, and buys them on the best terms he can. The small farmer sells one or two at a time, as his stock increases. The slave-grower, after reserving those suited( to his stock calculations, disposes of the most marketable. Executors’ and sheriffs’ sales are narrowly watched, and good bargains are there obtained very often for the ready cash. A few specimens of the every-day advertisements in southern papers will give a tolerably-correct idea of the practice followed in bartering, advertising, and disposing of slaves. We copy from southern papers, in an abridged 52

Page 53 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY, form. Mr. P. Bahi has committed to jail as a runaway, a little negro aged about seven years. The Mayor has com mitted to jail as a runaway slave, Jordan, about twelve years old, and the sheriff proclaims that if no one claims him he will be sold as a slave to pay jail fees. A boy aged fourteen, another aged twelve, anjd a girl ten, will be sold to pay the debts of their deceased masters. Negroes for sale: A negro woman of twentyfour years of age, and has two children-one eight, and the other three years old. Said negroes will be sold separately or together, as desired. The woman is a good seamstress. She will be sold low for cash, or exchanged for groceries. Pursuant to a deed of trust will be sold to the highest bidder for cash, Fanny, aged about twenty-eight years; Mary, aged about seven; Amanda, about three months; Wilson, aged about nine months. By executor’s sale will be sold one negro girl, about two years old, named Rachel, for the benefit of the heirs and creditors of the estate. Fifty negroes wanted immediately, for which a good price will be given, of from ten to thirty years of age. Taken and committed to jail, a negro named Nancy. The owner is requested to come forward, prove property, pay charges, and take her away, or she shall be sold to pay her jail fees.

(See American Slavery, pp. 167-169.) The internal slavetrade is or has been carried on from the old to the new slave states, to the extent of upward of eighty thousand annually. In three years ninety thousand slaves were introduced into Mississippi. In two or three years the slaves of this state increased from sixty thousand to one hundred and sixty thousand.

When the traders collect their purchased slaves they secure them in jails and other places of confinement, in order to prevent them from running away. The great traders, of the wholesale class, erect strong citadels for this purpose, which are sometimes called barracoons, where the appurtenances of the jail and penitentiary are provided, in 5* 53 ;ilu

Page 54 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE order to preserve them securely for the market, either by retail, or, as is mostly the case, till a gang may be made up of sufficient numbers to justify the expense and trouble of taking them by land in chained gangs; or, as is more recently the case, till enough in number are collected to charter a vessel, in which they are conveyed for the more southern market. The following is the description which the Hon.

Mr. Giddings, in his address in 1838, gives of the barracoons and other such places: “The purchase and sale of slaves at Washington has become a regular business. The country around is poor, and the growing of slaves has gradually become a source of profit. The public jail built with the money of the nation, for many years has been used as a prison for slaves destined for sale till their owners could dispose of them. In this manner the funds belonging to the people of this nation are used for the benefit of the slavetrade. Besides the jail there are several factories or private prisons appropriated to the imprisonment of slaves. These factories and the public jail are made the receptacles of all the horror and unutterable anguish attendant upon the separation of parents and children, husbands and wives, on being torn from home, and country, and friends, and doomed to a certain death amidst the miasma of the southern rice and cotton plantations. Many instances, shocking to the feeliligs of humanity, are related by those who reside there. “The public papers that contain the journal of the National Legislature also contain notices for the sale and purchase of slaves.‘SALES AT AUCTION,’ where immortal beings are sold at public vendue, are heralded forth in the government papers.

“In the most populous parts of the city, on the most beautiful avenue of the metropolis, men, women, and children are sold at public vendue. All restraint is thrown off. The ,54

Page 55 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. regular slavetrader pursues his vocation, purchases his cargo of human beings, and sends them to other states, or to Texas, with as little apparent compunction of conscience as he who follows the driving of cattle. He purchases a license for $400 per annuim, and then with perfect impunity follows a practice which, if pursued on the African coast, would by our laws constitute piracy. Strange as it may seem, the crime for which he would be hanged, if committed in Africa, he commits here for the price of $400 per annum, and mingles with the people, freely enters the Capitol with the representatives of the nation, sits in the gallery with the most virtuous and respectable citizens of these United States. Emboldened by the fact that Congress has so long shielded and protected them, they have, during the past winter, driven their victims, males and females, chained, past the Capitol, in view of both houses of Congress, of foreign ministers, and representatives of foreign govern ments, residing at Washington, and all that vast concourse of visitants usually found at Washington during the winter sessions of Congress. The outrages upon the laws of hu manity and upon our national character have deeply affected our reputation among the civilized nations of the earth.” BARRAcOONS.-The following advertisement is copied, without the alteration of a letter, from a late Richmond Whig. Strange that slaves should ever run away from such excellent accommodations as those of Bacon Tait! Perhaps they do not relish the safety and comfort of being sold. “ATotice.-The commodious buildings which I have recently had erected in the city of Richmond, are now ready for the accommodation of all persons who may wish their NEGROES safely and comfortably taken care of. “The buildings were erected upon an extensive scale, without regard to cost, my main object being to insure the safekeeping, and at the same time the health and comfort of the negroes who may be placed thereat. 55

II

Page 56 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE ” The rooms and yards for the females are separate from those for the males, and genteel house servants will have rooms to themselves. The regulations of the establishment will be general cleanliness, moderate exercise, and recreation within the yards during good weather, and good, substantial food at all times, by which regulations it is intended that confinement shall be rendered merely nominal, and the health of the negroes so promoted, that they will be well prepared to encounter a change of climate when removed to the south.

“These buildings are situated on the lot corner of 15th and Cary streets, between Mayo’s bridge and the Bell Tavern. Apply to BACON TAIT.” The mode of transferring the slaves by land, by the slave-dealers, is usually in gangs. It was our misfortune to witness, in the spring of 1828, in Uniontown, Pa., where we then resided, two of these gangs. They were not, however, the gangs of the great traders. They were only the company composed of the slaves of one or two white families, who, with their slaves, were moving to the southwest; and hence these were specimens of the most favorable description. Each gang consisted of between fifty and one hundred, of all ages. Two or more carriages, with the white families, moved in front. After them one or two wagons, carrying negro children and their mothers, continued the line. Many colored boys and girls were walking along side the line. Behind came a large six-horse team with a strong chain attached to the hind part of the wagon. On each side of the chain was a line of negro men, with their coffle chains attached to this large chain. The row on the left of the great chain were attached to it by fastenings connected with the handcuffs on their right hands, while the row on the right were connected with the chain by their left hands. These chained ranks followed the loaded wagon, walking in the deep mud through the 56

Page 57 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. streets of Uniontown. Several armed white persons walked along side, or rode on horseback, having a good look-out to see that none would escape. Such sights we never saw before or since, and we trust it may never be our lot to see such again. But these were merely the domestic, not the trading gangs. In 1817 James K. Paulding, Esq., since Secretary of the Navy, who published “Letters from the South,”

written during an excursion in 1816, gives the following description of the doings of a negro-dealer, who seems to have been a small peddler in human traffic, yet useful in making up the larger gangs: “The sun was shining out very hot, and in turning the angle of the road we encountered the following group: first, a little cart drawn by one horse, in which five or six halfnaked black children were tumbled like pigs together. The cart had no covering, and they seemed to have been broiled to sleep.

Behind the cart marched three black women, with head, neck, and breasts.uncovered, and without shoes or stockings. Next came three men, bareheaded, and chained together with an ox-chain. Last of all, came a white man on horseback, carrying his pistols in his belt, and who, as we passed him, had the impudence to look us in the face without blushing. At a house where we stopped a little further on, we learned that he had bought these miserable beings in Maryland, and was marching them in this mannier to one of the more southern states. Shame on the state of Maryland! and I say, shame on the state of Virginia! and every state through which this wretched cavalcade was permitted to pass! I do say, that when they-the slaveholders-permit such flagrant and indecent outrages upon humanity as that I have described; when they sanction a villain in thus marching halfnaked men and women, loaded with chains, without being charged with any crime but that of being black, from one section of the United States to p”I 57

Page 58 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE another, hundreds of miles in the face of day, they disgrace themselves, and the country to which they belong.” The following description of a gang of slaves, on a pretty large scale, is a just picture of the revolting spectacle: “Just as we reached New river, in the early gray of the morning, we came upon a singular spectacle, the most striking one of the kind I have ever witnessed. It was a camp of negro slave-drivers, just packing up to start. They had about three hundred slaves with them, who had bivouacked the preceding night in chains in the woods. These they were conducting to Natchez, upon the Mississippi river, to work upon the sugar plantations in Louisiana. It resembled one of those coffles of slaves spoken of by Mungo Park, except that they had a caravan of nine wagons and single-horse carriages, for the purpose of conducting the white people, and any of the blacks that should fall lame, to which they were now putting the horses to pursue their march. The female slaves were, some of them, sitting on logs of wood, while others were standing, and a great many little black children were warming themselves at the fires of the bivouac. In front of them all, and prepared for the march, stood, in double files, about two hundred male slaves, manacled, and chained to each other. I had never seen so revolting a sight before! Black men in fetters, torn from the lands where they were born, from the ties they had formed, and from the comparatively easy condition which agricultural labor affords, and driven by white men, with liberty and equality in their mouths, to a distant and unhealthy country, to perish in the sugar-mills of Louisiana, where the duration of life for a sugar-mill slave does not exceed seven years! To make this spectacle still more disgusting and hideous, some of the principal white slave-drivers, who were tolerably well dressed, and had broad-brimmed white hats on, with black crape round them, were standing near, laughing, and smoking cigars.

58

Page 59 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. “Whether these sentimental speculators were or were not, in accordance with the language of the American Declara tion of Independence, in mourning for a’decent respect for the opinions of mankind,’ or for their own callous, inhuman lives, I could not but be struck with the monstrous ab surdity of such fellows putting on any symbol of sorrow, while engaged in the exercise of such a horrid trade; so, wishing them in my heart all manner of evil to endure as long as there was a bit of crape to be obtained, we drove on, and, having forded the river in a flat-bottomed boat, drew up on the road, where I persuaded the driver to wait till we had witnessed the crossing of the river by the’gang,’ as it was called. “It was an interesting, but a melancholy spectacle, to see them effect the passage of the river: first, a man on horseback selected a shallow place in the ford for the male slaves; then followed a wagon and four horses, attended by another man on horseback. The other wagons contained the children and some that were lame, while the scows, or flat-boats, carried over the women and some of the people belonging to the caravan. There was much method and vigilance observed, for this was one of those situations where the gangs, always watchful to obtain their liberty, often show a disposition to mutiny, knowing that if one or two of them could wrench their manacles off, they could soon free the rest, and either disperse themselves or overpower and slay their sordid keepers, and fly to the free states. ” The slave-drivers, aware of this disposition in the unfortunate negroes, endeavor to mitigate their discontent by feeding them well on the march, and by encouraging them to sing’ Old Virginia never tire,’ to the banjo. “The poor negro slave is naturally a cheerful, laughing creature, and, even when driven through the wilderness in chains, if he is well fed and kindly treated, is seldom melan 59

Page 60 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE choly; for his thoughts have not been taught to stray to the future; and his condition is so degraded, that if the food and warmth his desires are limited to are secured to him, he is singularly docile. It is only when hlie is ill-treated and roused to desperation, that his vindictive and savage nature breaks out. But these gangs are accompanied by other negroes trained by the slave-dealers to drive the rest, whom they amuse by lively stories, boasting of the fine, warm climate they are going to, and of the oranges and sugar which are there to be had for nothing. “In proportion as they recede from the free states, the danger of revolt diminishes; for, in the southern slave states all men have an interest in protecting this infernal trade of slave-driving, which, to the negro, is a greater curse than slavery itself, since it too often dissevers forever those affecting natural ties which even a slave can form, by tearing, without an instant’s notice, the husband from the wife, and the children from their parents-sending the one to the sugar plantations of Louisiana, another to the cotton lands of Arkansas, and the rest to Texas.” (Featherstonhaugh’s Travels in America in 1834-35, pp. 36, 37. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1844.) But the practice of driving gangs of slaves through the country to the southern market has been, to a great extent, discontinued, on account of the dangers and inconveniences to which it is liable. For the drivers have frequently been overpowered by the negroes, and great loss of property was thus incurred by their escape.

Hence, these speculators in men have turned their attention to the expediency of collecting their gangs in some seaport of a slaveholding state, and thus conveying them in ships or steamboats tc the great southern markets, both as the cheapest and safest way of conveying them.

This scheme, however, introduces the domestic slavetrade of the United States upon the great highway of nations. In the case of the Creole, a 60

Page 61 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. slave-transporting vessel, the cargo of slaves overpowered their keepers while on the voyage, and took refuge in a British dependency. Although they were claimed as prop erty, the legality of the claim was denied, and the denial had to be submitted to. There seems to be no distinction, in the eye of humanity, between chaining and transporting slaves by land or by sea; and to give countenance of pro tection to slave-traders on the high seas, would be virtually giving countenance to the slavetrade. Besides, in this traffic, not only between the states, but, also, in every neighborhood where slavery exists, the system of slavery pays no regard to domestic ties. Husbands and wives are separated, parents and children, and other relatives, are severed, with unsparing cruelty. It is true that many individuals, from honest, conscientious motives, would not willingly, at any price, separate relatives, or even dispose of their slaves, except according to their desire. But this act of humanity and of religion is not learned from slavery, but is a direct revolt against the system. Yet the system of slavery, as established by law, and sustained by the courts, knows nothing of this humanity. Sheriffs, executors, and other officers, under the strong protection of constitutions, laws, and judicial decisions, break ii on all the endearing relations of life without pity, and without respect to such ties. The Rev. James O’Kelly, in a very ab’le “Essay on Negro Slavery, published, Philadelphia, 1789,” pp. 35, duodecimo, gives the following cases which came under his own observation: (See pp. 8 and 9 of the Essay.) “On the Lord’s day,” says Mr. O’Kelly, “in the evening, as I was walking and meditating, I saw a man-slave sitting alone, with a book in his hand, who appeared to be in deep distress. I drew near to him, and asked the cause of his trouble. With a deep sigh, he gave me the substance of the following relation:‘My dear wife, and all my children, 6 61

Page 62 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE are removed far from me toward the south, and I shall see them no more. And what has augmented my pain, is a verbal message to me from her, to love her till I die as she would me, and that she never would have another man. Formerly I was much engaged for the salvation of my soul; but now I think I shall be overcome, so as to destroy body and soul together.’ “A woman-slave, in Charlotte county, Virginia, whose husband was removed to Georgia, so regretted his loss, that, had it not been for the kind providence of the Almighty, through the activity of her young mistress, she would have ended her wretched life with a halter. “A poor slave, a few months past, lost his wife and children, who were sold as so many cattle, to discharge a debt. He pined away to a mere skeleton, and gave up the ghost. O husbands, who have tender wives and precious children, can you acquiesce with a law that tolerates a practice so inhuman, which enslaves human creatures who have as much right to their natural liberty as to the common air? You are constrained inwardly to acknowledge “tis not altogether just and equitable, but necessity calls, and it must be so now. I wish they had never been brought here, but I see no better way for them at present.’ On this miserable excuse the slaveholder sets his foot. “I saw a slave near New river, who was lamenting the loss of a wife and seven children, who were then on their way to South Carolina. His grief appeared to me to be intolerable, too heavy to be borne without Divine assistance, which, I trust, he had. An addition to his grief was, a message he had received of her sorrow on the road, that it was so great that they were obliged to carry her in a wagon. I endeavored to comfort him with the pleasures of the other world and religion. Now, reader, put thy soul-only by reflection-in his soul’s place, and try the enormous weight.” 62

Page 63 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERFY. Read, also, the following extract: “Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. These acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the agony, often witnessed on such occasions, proclaim, with a trumpet tongue, the iniquity of our system. There is not a neighborhood where these heart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a vil lage or road that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from all that their hearts hold dear.” (Address of Synod of Kentucky in 1835, p. 12.) 7. The present slave system has atrocities equal or sim ilar to those of the African slavetrade; and, therefore, a similar condemnation must rest on it. The arguments which have been urged against the Afri can slavetrade, are, with little variation, applicable to the system of American slavery. Among the many instances that may be given, we produce the following: (1.) He who voluntarily holds a slave, as such, continues to deprive him of that liberty which was taken from him on the coast of Africa. And if it was wrong to deprive him of it in the first instance, it must, also, be wrong in the second. And, hence, no man has a better right to retain a negro in slavery, than he had to take him as a slave from his native Africa. And every man who can not show that his slave has, by his voluntary conduct, forfeited his liberty, is obliged to manumit him, if it be in his power.

(2.) The mere act of removing the Africans from their native country, is not that in which the sin of manstealing principally consists; but it lies in robbi2g or depriving tte?m of their liberty, labor, time, and natural }‘iyhts. If, then, the sin of manstealing lies in robbing men of these, it is impossible that another, either by inheritance or purchase, can continue the same robbery and be ilnnocent. 63

Page 64 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE (3.) The motive in the African trader and the genuine slaveholder in America is the same; namely, to derive advantaye from the transaction. The object of the African trader is, to obtain the time, liberty, labor, and natural rights of the slave, in order to make these serve his worldly interest. The man who pays his money for a slave, pays it for a power to do the same thing. It is true our slaveholder pays his money for the slave; and the manstealer was also at some expense to obtain the slave; for he spent his time and risked his life, which are as valuable as money. (4.) The first act of stealing the man, and the second act of holding him in bondage, are equally criminal. The first act implied double robbery; for it was a violent separation of husbands from their wives, and children from their parents; so that it implied double robbery, although the same transaction; because, in all cases where the husband is taken from the wife, the wife is taken from the husband. The same holds true of the parents and children. But common slaveliolding implies the same double robbery. If a husband is purchased, and removed from his wife and children, he is then robbed from them, and his wife and children are equally robbed from him. The same holds true of other separations of near relatives. Let the crime, then, of manstealing in the first instance be compared with common slaveholding, and it will be found that the crime of stealing men from Africa, and holding them in slavery in America, are essentially the same, and. of equal aggravation. Their removal from their place of nativity in Africa, is no worse than their removal in America from their places of nativity, which is constantly done by slaveholders.

(5.) The common slaveholder is much more criminal than the first man-thief. The first thief or robber steals or robs and sells only the first generation, but obliges no purchaser to steal or rob their children.

Yet slaveholders, in America, steal every child as soon as it is born, and entail the same 64

Page 65 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. theft upon their posterity to all generations, and the same bondage on the slaves and their children to the end of time. To maintain that long habit or custom has a power of turning the most atrocious wickedness into virtue; or that the most atrocious wickedness, by a transfer of the power of committing it, will turn into virtue; or that this change is justly made by the sanction of civil authority-all, or any one of these three, are supremely absurd. (6.) The injury of the slave system is more than common theft or robbery. For, because liberty is more valuable than property; and that it is a greater sin to deprive a man of his whole liberty during life, than to deprive him of his whole property; or that manstealing is a greater crime than robbery. For, to hold a man in slavery who was stolen, is substantially the same crime as to steal him. Hence, to hold a human being in slavery is a greater crime than theft or robbery. (7.) It is a greater sin, in the sight of God, to enslave men, than it is to be guilty of concubinage or fornication. Because, to commit theft or robbery every day of a man’s life, is as great a sin as to commit fornication in one instance. But, to steal a man, or rob him of his liberty, is a greater sin than to steal his property, or to take it by violence. And to hold a man in slavery who has a right to his liberty, is to be every day robbing him of his liberty, or to be guilty of manstealing. The consequence is plain, other things being equal, that to hold a slave is a greater sin, in the sight of God, than concubinage or adultery. (8.) The question is clearly decided by the Bible: “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in hlis hand, he shall surely be put to death,” Exodus xxi, 16. Thus, death is the punishment awarded to the manstealer, or to him that now holds the stolen person. Now, to hold a man in slavery who has a light to liberty, is sub 6* 65

Page 66 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF TIIE stantially the same crime with depriving him of liberty. And to deprive of liberty, and reduce to slavery, a man who has a right to liberty, is manstealing; for it is immaterial whether he be taken or reduced to slavery clandestinely or by open violence. (9.) American slavery has been the great receiver, the ally, and the supporter of the African slavetrade. Even after the horrors of the Africanl trade, and its system, have been pronounced piracy, so close was the connection between the two systems that the African trade continued, and yet continues. Multitudes are now kidnapped in Africa and introduced into the United States, and “broken in,” in the southern plantations. The number thus introduced has been variously calculated by speakers in Congress, but never lower than thirteen thousand per annum, besides the multitudes smuggled into Texas from Cuba, or openly received in some instances, as has been stated, in utter contempt of law. (10.) Thus, slavery is only a continuation of kidnapping. The one is the other continued. The purchaser from the kidnapper purchases a kidnapper’s title. He buys the privilege of continuing upon the person of the slave, the same criminal violence and wrong which were commenced in Africa. Hence, if slavery be not sinful, kidnapping, and the whole system of the African slavetrade, is right; a consequence so absurd that no man can admit it. (] 1.) There are several particulars in which the equality of atrocity may be traced in the slavetrade and our own slavery. First. In the number of victims of both it will be difficult, perhaps, to decide whether the African traffic or our own domestic institution may justly claim the bad pre-eminence of enslaving the greater number of human beings. From 1700 to 1786 the number of slaves imported by Britain into Jamaica alone was six hundred and ten thousand, or 66 ,’ I

Page 67 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. about seven thousand annually. The total number imported into all the British colonies, from 1680 to 1786, a space of one hundred and six years, was about two million, one hundred and thirty thousand, making the annual imports to be twenty-one thousand or twenty-two thousand. Wilberforce, in 1788, reckoned that thirty-eight thousand were annually taken from the coast of Africa, on British vessels alone. In 1847 the slaves carried from Africa into Brazil alone amounted to eighty-four thousand, three hundred and thirtysix; while the total increase of the colored population of the United States, from 1830 to 1840-ten years-bond and free, was only fifty-four thousand, three hundred and fifty-six. It is now calculated, that about four hundred thousand are made victims of the slavetrade annually. About one half of these perish in the capture, transportation, aad seasoning; and the other half, or two hundred thousand, are sold in the various slave countries. About eighty thousand slaves, when the trade was brisk, were annually transported, in.the United States, from the old to the new slave states. At present it is calculated, that only about forty thousand are transferred annually, in the domestic slavetrade of the country; and although there may be considerable difference between the number of victims, in the two trades, the identity of moral turpitude can not be questioned. Second. The horrors of both systems are identical in nature, if not in extent or degree. The capture, the middle passage, and the seasoning of the African trade have their corresponding atrocities in the sales of the slave-growers to the small negro-trader and the barracoon gentlemen. The gangs of handcuffed slaves and the shipped gangs to New Orleans are sufficiently-good imitations of the middle passage, with its murders and low brutality; and though the scavenger trader is despised by his principal and employerthe slave-grower-the trader seems to be the more honora 67

Page 68 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE ble man, as he rarely sells his own children or grandchildren, an alleviation of guilt which can not be claimed by many of the growers of slaves. And, then, the seasoning of the African business is certainly, in atrocity, behind the seasoning of Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky negroes, in the cotton, rice, and sugar plantations of the far south. But, then, the African commerce is outdone by our home business, when the seasoning has done its work of cruelty and death. The African dealer in flesh finishes his work, when he sells his chained victims; but the American slaveholder then just begins his, and deliberately, and according to law, extends the wrong to the end of life and to all generations, by new and successive acts of robbery, in the enslavement of every child as soon as born. The following is an exemplification of this: “I shall never forget a scene which took place in the city of St. Louis while I was in slavery. A man and his wife, both slaves, were brought from the country to the city for sale. They were taken to the rooms of AUSTINZ

& SAVAGE, auctioneers. Several slave speculators, who are always to be found at auctions where slaves are to be sold, were present. The man was first put up, and sold to the highest bidder. The wife was next ordered to ascend the platform. I was present. She slowly obeyed the order. The auctioneer commenced, and soon several hundred dollars were bid. My eyes were intensely fixed on the face of the woman, whose cheeks were wet with tears. But a conversation between the slave and his new master attracted my attention. I drew near them to listen. The slave was begging his new master to purchase his wife. Said he, ‘Master, if you will only buy Fanny I know you will get the worth of your money. She is a good cook, a good washer, and her last mistress liked her very much. If you will only buy her, how happy I will be!’ The new master replied that he did not want her, but, if she sold cheap, he 68

Page 69 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. would purchase her. I watched the countenance of the man while the different persons were bidding on his wife. When his new master bid on his wife, you could see the smile on his countenance, and the tears stop; but as soon as another would, you could see the countenance change, and the tears start afresh. From this change of counte nance one could see the workings of the inmost soul. But this suspense did not last long. The wife was struck off to the highest bidder, who proved to be not the owner of her husband. As soon as they became aware that they were to be separated, they both burst into tears; and as she descended from the auction stand, the husband, walking up to her and taking her by the hand, said,‘Well, Fanny, we are to part forever on earth. You have been a good wife to me. I did all that I could to get my new master to buy you; but he did not want you; and all I have to say is, I hope you will try to meet me in heaven. I shall try to meet you there.’

The wife made no reply; but her sobs and cries told too well her own feelings. I saw the countenances of a number of whites who were present, and whose eyes were dimmed with tears, at hearing the man bid his wife farewell. Such are but common occurrences in the slave states.” (Narrative of the Life of William Brown, pp. 110-112.) Third. The profits of slavery and the slavetrade form a common element of identity between the slavetrade and its parent, or, as some would have it, the child-American slavery. For gain men engage in the slavetrade, and for gain men hold slaves. It is true, that envy, hatred, and murder may, and often do, precede the element of gain, as in the case of Joseph’s brethren, who envied him, then hated him, and then determined to kill him; but as the twenty pieces of silver were greater gain than to merely kill him, they commuted murder for gain; and unless slavery will pay, who would be slaveholders? 69

Page 70 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE As a specimen of profit, take the following: The brig Cygnet, in 1847, was seized by a British cruiser, having five hundred and fifty-six slaves on board, and taken to Sierra Leone. Allowing the deaths to be one-third, which is less than an average, the captain, who was to have had $60 per head for freight, would have realized a clear profit of $20,000, for a passage of from twenty to twenty-six days from Gallinas to Brazil. The profit to Don Luizo, the owner, would be $55,000, or the two-thirds, had the ship not been taken. “On the coast of Africa, negroes are usually paid for in money. Sometimes in lozendas, coarse cottons, at a cost of about $18 for men, $12 for boys. At Rio Janeiro, their value may be estimated at 500 millreas, or ~50, for men, 400
millreas, or ~41 10s., for women, 300 millreas, or 31, for boys. Thus, on a cargo of five hundred, at the mean price, the profit will exceed 19,000. Cost price of five hundred, at $15, or 3 5s. each, 1,625.

Selling price at Rio of five hundred, at 41 10s. each, 20,750.” (Forty Days on board a Slaver.) The profits on four vessels would not subject them to loss provided the fifth escaped. Manael Pinto da Fonseca publicly declared, that his profits on the African trade, in 1844, were 1,300,000,000 reas, or about $1,625,000. A profit of two hundred per cent., and often much over, is common in the trade even now. Fourth. The mortality, too, or waste of human life, in the two systems, forms a common characteristic. The greater part of the horrors of the domestic slavetrade has not been recorded on earth. Under the age of 10 we have not accurate data on which to proceed. I find, by comparing the ages of slaves with those of the free people of color, that between 10 and 24
there should be 665,875 slaves, whereas there are but 620,827, showing a deficiency of 45,048. Between 24 and 36, the working age, there should 70

Page 71 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. be 439,389; there are but 370,330 slaves, making a de ficiency of 69,059. Between the age of 36 and 55, when decay begins to affect the slave, there should be 340,161; there are only 229,787, making a waste of 110,374. Over 55 years of age there ought to be 186,797; there are but 83,736, raising the loss to 103,061. The total deficiency, therefore, arising from this waste of life, is 327,541, pre maturely worn out and killed on the cotton and sugar plantations in the south for 10 years. Taking the census of 1840, and following the same standard-the number of the free people of color-there ought to be 829,698
slaves between the ages of 10 and and 24; there are but 781,206, making a deficiency of 48,492. Between 24 and 36 there should be 586,107; there are but 475,160; deficiency, 110,947. From 36 to 55 the proper number is 444,376; actual number 284,465; deficiency, 159,911, or about 36 per cent.

The total deficiency in 10 years is 319,350. There are not half as many slaves over 55, and only two-thirds as many between 36 and 55, as there would be were the condition of adult slaves as favorable to longevity as that of the free colored. The census of 1840 shows that the increase of the slave population for the 10 previous years was 25 per cent. The census of 1830 made the gain 32 per cent. So that the increase in 10 years previous to 1840 was 7 per cent. less than the 10 years previous to 1830.

According, to the census of 1840, the slave-exporting states-Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia-bhad parted with 436,501; the slave-importing states-Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Floridashow a gain of only 271,586. The deficiency, 164,915, or difference between the exports and imports, can be explained only by the loss of life in the south. (See Proceedings of Antislavery Convention for 1843, pp. 39-41.) 71

Page 72 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE The loss of life attending the slavetrade in Brazil, at present, is thirty-five per cent.; that is, for every 65,000
imported to that country, 100,000 are shipped from Africa. Fifth. The breach of domestic relations, between parents and children, husbands and wives, in the two great departments of slavery, will fully identify them in moral character. Perhaps here the African slavetrade, in proportion to the number of its victims, may claim a “less bad” character than its mother, slavery. But the number of victims of our home unnatural severances may more than balance the account. As it is, in the department of our national and individual sinfulness, there is guilt enough contracted to rank those concerned, and the system in which they are engaged, as one of the most immoral departments of human crime. And of the millions of cases that could be given, a few of which are given in these volumes, we now present the following, which occurred in the city of Washington: “A poor woman was put in jail about a week since. It is the jail that cost the people of the United States nearly, or quite, $60,000.

Had this woman committed crime? Not the least in the world. Her mistress wants to sell her, and pocket the money-that’s all. She puts her into jail simply to know where she is when she finds a customer. This poor woman, offered for sale, expects to be confined in a few weeks. She has a husband and mother, but neither of them are allowed to go into the jail to visit her. The husband tried to talk with her through the grated window, the other day, but was driven off by some menial of the establishment. Amanda, the slave-woman, is a member of the Methodist Church, which takes the name of Bethlehem. I hear she is in good standing in the Church, and sustains a fair and good character generally. The mistress-the owner-the trader-who is she? She is Miss A. B., a venerable spinster, a few years ago from Virginia, and now 72

Page 73 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. residing in this city. She brought with her this woman, her mother, and two or three children, upon whose wages she has lived for years past, and now proposes to put Amanda in her pocket. She (Miss A. B.) is a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, belongs to the M’Kendree Chapel congregation, and attends class regularly.

I am glad to say some of the brethren are a little stirred about this transaction. “Within a few days another young wife with an infant in her arms, has been put into the same people’s jail. She is seized upon by the sheriff, and $130 levied upon her. This is done by a woman too-a Mrs. or Miss M., of Prince George’s county,.Md. Mrs. M. sold the woman a few years since, with her two children, for $650, and has received the entire sum, within $50, with the interest-say $80-and now levies upon her for this balance. The husband procured a purchaser, and has contrived himself to pay $350 on the original sum. The balance is yet due, not to the woman, but to some one else, who made the purchase. The lawyers have got hold of the case, and whether the anxious husband will be able to save his wife, or be compelled to give her up, heaven only knows.” (Correspondent of the N.Y. Tribune.) Sixth. The following opinions, or rather arguments, will further show the moral identity of the African trade and American slavery: “The slavetrade finds no one bold enough now to defend even its memory.

And yet, when we hear the slavetrade reprobated, and slavery defended by the same persons, I must own I think the slavetrade unfairly treated. The abuse of the defunct slavetrade is a cheap price for the abettor of living slavery to pay by way of compromise. But we can not allow the colonial party on these terms to cry truce with us, by stigmatizing the slavetrade. There is not one general principle on which the slavetrade is to be 73 7

Page 74 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE stigmatized which does not impeach slavery itself.”

(Lord Nugent.) Lord Grenville then read a resolution of the commons: “This resolution, he said, stated, first, that the slavetrade was contrary to humanity, justice, and sound policy. That it was contrary to humanity was obvious; for humanity might be said to be sympathy for the distress of others, or a desire to accomplish benevolent ends by good means. But did not the slavetrade convey ideas the very reverse of the definition? It deprived men of all those comforts, in which it pleased the Creator to make the happiness of his creature to consist, of the blessings of society, of the charities of the dear relationships of husband~ wife, father, son, and kindred, of the due discharge of the relative duties of these, and of that freedom which, in its pure and natural sense, was one of the greatest gifts of God to man. “It was impossible to read the evidence, as it related to this trade, without acknowledging the inhumanity of it and our own disgrace. “In a state of nature, man had a light to the fruit of his own labor absolutely to himself; and one of the main purposes for which he entered into society was, that he might be better protected in the possession of his rights. In both cases, therefore, it was manifestly unjust, that a man should be made to labor during the whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labor.

Hence the slavetrade and. the colonial slavery were a violation of the very principle, upon which all law for the protection of property was founded. Whatever benefit was derived from that trade to an individual, it was derived from dishonor and dishonesty. He forced from the unhappy victim of it that which the latter did not wish to give him; and he gave to the same victim that which he in vain attempted to show was an equivalent to the thing he took, it being a thing for which there was no equivalent, and which, if hlie had not obtained by force, he 74

Page 75 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. would not have possessed at all. The injustice complained of was not confined to the bare circumstance of robbing them of the right to their own labor. It was conspicuous throughout the system.” “WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE. “Shylock. What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? You have among you many a purchased slave, Which, like your asses, and your dogs, and mules, You use in abject and in slavish parts, Because you bought them: shall I say to you, Let them be free, marry them to your heirs? Why sweat they under burdens? let their beds Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates Be seasoned with such viands? you will answer, The slaves are ours: so do I answer you: The pound of flesh, which I demand of him, Is dearly bought, is mine, and I will have it; If you deny me, fie upon your law.” ” SIR,-Iniquitous, and most dishonorable to Maryland, is that dreary system of partial bondage, which her laws have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a better object, and her citizens by their practice countenanced. “Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to which the parent country lent her fostering aid, from motives of interest, but which even she would have disdained to encourage, had England been the destined mart of such inhuman merchandiso, its continuance is as shameful as its origin. “Wherefore should we confine the edge of censure to our ancestors, or those from whom they purchased?

Are not we EQUALLY guilty? They strewed around the seeds of slavery-we cherish and sustain the growth. They introduced the system-we enlarge, invigorate, and confirm it.” (William Pinckney, speech in the Maryland House of Delegates, 1789.) THOMAS ERSKINE.-The Lord Chancellor-Erskine-said: “From information which he could not dispute, he was warranted in saying,, that on this continent [Afiica] husbands 75

Page 76 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF TIIE were fraudulently and forcibly severed from their wives, and parents from their children; and that all the tics of blood and affection were torn up by the roots. He had himself seen the unhappy natives put together in heaps in the hold of a ship, where, with every possible attention to them, their situation must have been intolerable. He had also heard proved in courts of justice, facts still more dreadful than those which he had seen. One of these he would just mention. The slaves on board a certain ship rose in a mass to liberate themselves; and having far advanced in the pursuit of their object, it became necessary to repel them by force. Some of them yielded; some of them were killed in the scuffle; but many of them actually jumped into the sea and were drowned; thus preferring death to the misery of their situation; while others hung to the ship, repenting of their rashness, and bewailing with frightful noises their horrid fate. Thus the whole vessel exhibited but one hideous scene of wretchedness. They who were subdued, and secured in chains, were seized with the flux, which carried many of them off. These things were proved in a trial before a British jury, which had to consider whether this was a loss which fell within the policy of insurance-the slaves being regarded as if they had been only a cargo of dead matter. He could mention other instances, but they were much too shocking to be described. Surely, their lordships could never consider such a traffic to be consistent with humanity or justice.” 8. Slavery is the parent of the slavetrade. Africa is annually robbed of four hundred thousand of her population, to glut the cupidity or to minister to the pride and luxury of nominal Christians and true Mohammcdans. From two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand of these perish in their original capture; by the fatigues and privations in their transit to the coast; by d i s e a s e and death in the middle passage. And the remain I’ l 76

Page 77 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. der, or between one hundred thousand and two hundred thousand, are doomed to perpetual slavery. There are above one hundred thousand transported to Cuba and Bra zil, by the two weakest nations of Europe; and, in conse quence of the vigilance of the British nation, the horrors of the trade, as to capture, middle passage, landing and sea soning, are greater than before the legal condemnation of the trade. When the contest against the slavetrade com menced, a little over half a century ago, it was calculated there were firom two to three millions of slaves in the world! There were recently, according to documents quoted by Sir James Buxton, from six to seven millions. Fifty years ago, it was estimated that one hundred thousand slaves were annually taken from Africa. Now it is calculated the number is four hundred thousand per annum. “To begin with that which has chiefly occupied my attention for many months past: last November I started on a pilgrimage through all the books and parliamentary documents connected with the slavetrade. I began from the very beginning, and, partly in person, still more by deputy, I traversed the whole subject; and such a scene of diabolism, and such an excess of misery, as I have had to survey, never, I am persuaded, before fell to the lot of an unhappy investigator. Will you believe it, the slavetrade, though England has relinquished it, is now double to what it was when Wilberforce first began; and its horrors not only aggravated by the increase of the total, but in each particular case more intense than they were in 1788? Will you believe it, again, that it requires at the rate of a thousand human beings per diem in order to satisfy its enormous maw? How glad have I been to have escaped from the turmoils of Parliament, and to have my mind and my time my own, that I might bestow them without interruption on this vast mass of misery and crime!”-J. F. Buxton’s Letter to J. J. Gurney, Auqust 18, 1838. (See Buxton’s Life, p. 369.) ,7e 77

Page 78 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE The demand creates a market. The system of slavery makes the demand for slaves. The Christian breeders of them can not supply them cheap enough. Hence the foreign slavetrade, the offspring of slavery. And what moral difference is there between buying and selling men, women, and children, in the slave states, in carrying on the internal slavetrade, and going to the coast of Africa to steal or purchase them?

There is no moral difference. The law made by slaveholders establishes a difference; but the law of God pronounces both to be manstealing, and worthy of death. “He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death,” Ex. xxi, 16. While slavery exists, the slavetrade must live and flourish, without mitigation or diminution. 9. The state of Africa before visited by the Europeans may be considered, for the purpose of meeting the objection which is made by some, that the slaves are in a better condition here than they were in Africa. They say the slaves were captives or convicts, who would be sacrificed, were they not carried away; that slavery as it exists here never existed in Africa, and the kind that does exist has many ameliorating circumstances attending it, unknown to our slave code.

Besides, the alleged misery, and degradation of Africa, were introduced, to a very great degree, by the evil deeds of those who had so far drowned the voice of conscience as to engage in seizing or buying even convicts for gain, convey them to the market by the middle passage, and complete their infamous deeds by selling them like brutes or beasts. The following testimonies we adduce in favor of our position: “Axim is cultivated and abounds with numerous large and beautiful villages: its inhabitants are industriously em ployed in trade, fishing, or agriculture. The inhabitants of Adam always expose large quantities of corn to sell, besides what they want for their own use. The people of Acron 78

Page 79 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. husband their grounds and time so well, that every year produces a plentiful harvest. When walking through the Fetu country I have seen it abound with fine, well-built, and populous towns, agreeably enriched with vast quantities of corn and cattle, palm-wine and oil. The inhabitants all apply themselves, without distinction, to agriculture. Some sow corn; others press oil, and draw wine from the palmtrees. Formerly all crimes in Africa were compensated by fine or restitution, and, where restitution was impracticable, by corporeal punishment.” (Bosman.) “The discerning natives count it their greatest unhappiness, that they were ever visited by the Europeans. They say, that we Christians introduced the traffic of slaves; and that, before our coming, they lived in peace. But, say they, it is observable, wherever Christianity comes, there come swords, and guns, and powder, and ball with it.” (Smith, sent out by the Royal African Company, in 1726.) “The Europeans are far from desiring to act as peacemakers among them. It would be too contrary to their interests; for the only object of their wars is, to carry off slaves; and as these form the principal part of their traffic, they would be apprehensive of drying up the source of it, were they to encourage the people to live well together… The neighborhood of the Damel and Tiu keep them perfectly at war, the benefit of which accrues to the company, who buy all the prisoners made on either side; and the more there are to sell, the greater is their profit; for the only end of their armaments is, to make captives, to sell them to the white traders.”

(Bruce.) Arlus, of Dantzic, says, that, in his time, “those liable to pay fines were banished till the fine was paid; when they returned to their houses and possessions.” ;Since this trade has been used, all punishments have been changed into slavery. There being an advantage in such condemnation, thev strain the crimes very hard, in 79

Page 80 view page image

MORAL IDENTITY OF THE order to get the benefit of selling the criminal.

Not only murder, theft, and adultery are punished by selling the criminal for a slave, but every trifling crime is punished in the same manner.”

(Moore.) “The king of Sain, on the least pretense, sells his subjects for European goods. He is so tyrannically severe, that he makes a whole village responsible for the fault of one inhabitant, and, on the least pretense, sells them all for slaves.” (Sayer.) These witnesses were mostly engaged in the slavetrade themselves. Others might be easily added, were it necessary. Barbarism, ignorance, and even inhumanity are made more barbarous, ignorant, and inhuman, by the slavery which exists in this country, which sends its pestilence over to Africa, to degrade it below common heathenism; and all this by Christian men! (See Clarkson’s History of the Slavetrade, pp. 504-506.) 10. The principles on which the slavetrade has been destroyed by Great Britain and the United States will finally overthrow slavery itself. The slavetrade is barely the leading means of supplying slavery with its victims. The other means of supply is the domestic slave-growing and the domestic slavetrade of the country.

The great moral principles which affect any one of these branches of supply must affect the other, as well as the practical system of slaveholding itself. What overturns the one must overturn the other; and success in one is the earnest of success in the other. If the slavetrade be contrary to humanity and justice, so must slavery be contrary to humanity and justice. The one is barely the means; the other is the end to be accomplished by the means; and if the African trade is inhuman and unjust, as a sinful means to secure a sinful end, the domestic trade of purchase, sale, transportation, and slave-growing, which is only one other great means to secure the same sinful end-the holding in bondage our 80

Page 81 view page image

AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. fellowmen-must be also sinful. It is of little account, whether the slave in America was enslaved as soon as born where he labors, or is a native African. The home-made slave and the foreign slave are owned by the same master, labor in the same field, are deprived of the same rights, vis ited with the same wrongs, and the entailment on their pos terity the same. The abolition of the slavetrade was one of the most glorious events that ever transpired. It was a contest, but it was one, not of brute force, but of reason. It was a contest between those who felt deeply for the happiness and elevation of their fellowmen, and those who, through vicious custom and the impulse of avarice, had trampled under foot the sacred rights of nature, and attempted to deface the Divine image from their minds. In the discussions accompanying and following the abolition of the African trade, the most generous moral sympathies have been called into exercise, and have gone far to preserve national virtue, and to preserve from barbarism the nations which engaged in the suppression of the trade. This discussion is useful in the discrimination of moral character, ranking the wise and good on the side of freedom, and leaving the mistaken and vicious on the side of slavery, or in a sinful neutrality. It is a marvelous occurrence, that two nations, the most powerful on earth-England and Amnerica-the mother and the child-should, in the same month of the same year, have abolished the African trade. Emancipation, in part, followed in America. Under the British flag freedom has occupied the place of bondage. Other nations are following the good example; and America is in rapid progress to complete the work, commenced ill the abolition of the foreign trade, and continued in the advance of freedom. Well might the devout Clarkson conclude his admirable history of the abolition of the African slavetrade with this golden sentence: “Reader, thou art 81 kl 

Page 82 view page image

82 AFRICAN SLAVETRADE AND SLAVERY. now acquainted with the history of this contest. Rejoice in the manner of its termination! and, if thou feelest grateful for the event, retire within thy closet, and pour out thy thanksgiving to the Almighty, for this his unspeakable act of mercy to thy oppressed fellow-creatures.”

Page 83 view page image

THIE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. CHAPTER III. THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. As the enslavement of children, as soon as they are born, is become now the substitute of the African slavetrade, and, therefore, the support of slavery, which feeds and supplies its victims, it will deserve particular attention. We will, therefore, devote a short chapter exclusively to its consideration. The following are the arguments and considerations which we bring against it: 1. No one can ever be born a slave. Liberty is the natural right of every human being, as soon as he breathes the air; and no human law can justly deprive him of that right, which he derives from the law of nature. “All men are created free and equal.” In this light it is considered in the Roman or civil law, as appears from the following quotation from the Institutes of Justinian: “Liberty is a natural faculty, which belongs to every man, unless he is deprived of it by force or by law. Slavery is a constitution of the law of nations, by which any one is subjected to the dominion of another, CONTRARY TO NATURE.” * According to this, liberty is the natural faculty, privilege, or right of every person; and every one possesses it, till he is deprived of it by force or law.

While slavery is contrary to nature, it is a constitution, or institution, of the law of nations. Hence, every child of man is free, till he is made a slave. He is never born a slave. If one were born a slave, then all must be born slaves, because all are born alike; nor do we hear of any manumissions from a state of nature, that persons should be free, which must be the case, were men born * “Libertas quidem est naturalis facultas ejus, quod cuique facere libet, nisi siquid vi aut jure prohibetur.

Servitus autem est constitutio juris gentium, qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur.” (Institutiones Justiniani, lib. i, tit. 3.) 83

Page 84 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. slaves; nor do we find that any become slaves by nature: they are made so by force or by law; and without such force of violence or law, they are never found to be slaves. We hear, indeed, of some who were born servants in the house, in the days of the patriarchs.

But servants were not slaves; and, indeed, the servants of the patriarchs were mostly their subjects or dependents. 2. The enslavement of children, especially, is a direct violation of the law of nature; and this law of nature, as well as other natural laws, is the law, or constitution, of God himself. Blackstone-book i, p. 426-after showing that men can not justly be made slaves by captivity or the sale of one’s self, proves that they can not be born slaves, because, “this being built on the two former rights, must fall together with them. If neither captivity nor the sale of one’s self can, by the law of nature and reason, reduce the parent to slavery, much less can they reduce the offspring.” 3. All men, from their birth, are naturally, necessarily, and in all circumstances, the rightful owners of themselves, and are, therefore, incapable of becoming the goods and chattels of another, except by theft, violence, or unjust laws; for, since all men are naturally free, no one can deprive them of that freedom, but by the complicated crime of theft and robbery. A man may, by his crimes, forfeit his right to freedom, or he may sell his freedom for life, as it respects labor; but he can not transfer to another lhis right to perform the duties of religion, nor the relative duties which he owes to men; and as no man can transfer to another his own right to private, relative duties, he certainly can not transfer the natural rights of another to a third person; therefore, no man, without being guilty of theft or robbery, can take away the freedom of the Africans; much less can he take away the freedom of their children and their children’s children; for, when human 84

Page 85 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. beings are stolen, or, which is the same, are made property, the stolen person and the true owner are the same; hence, properly speaking, it is impossible to steal one human being from another.

A child may be stolen from a parent; but it must be stolen as a child, and not as a chattel. The services of the child are abstracted from the parent; but the thief could not take the child as an article of property.

As a thing to be possessed, and used as a thing of right, the child can only be stolen from himself. Theft, when a human being is stolen, is nothing but slaveholding; and slavehlolding is nothing else than the theft of a human being; for the essence of theft is, that the thief uses as his own what belongs to another. So, when the owner and the property become identical, every moment’s use of the owner, as the property of another and not of himself, is an act of stealing; hence, when one man possesses and uses another as a slave, he as much commits an act of theft, as the original kidnapper, who stole the man from Africa. 4. The enslavement of children is one of the unsound principles of heathenism, incorporated in the civil law, but adopted by the nominal Christian enslavers from their lheathen compeers in crime. The Roman or civil law says, “Persons are born slaves, from slave mothers, or they are made slaves by captivity or law;”

and elsewhere the general maxim is adopted, “Partus sequitur ventrem”-the child follows the condition of the mother. It is nothing in the way of slaveholders, that this same maxim is contrary to the law of nature, because they will be bound by no law of right. Enslaving children, on account of the condition of the parent, is visiting a capital crime on the child for the sin of the parent, even should it be granted that the parent is justly deprived of liberty for crime. The offspring, according to all just laws, are not sentenced to death for the sin of their parents; and it is no more unjust 8 85 .1 I

Page 86 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. to put to death the children of murderers, for the murders committed by their parents, than to enslave the children of slaves, because their mothers were slaves. How great, then, is the injustice, when the doom of perpetual servitude is inflicted, not upon criminals, convicted of atrocious wickedness, but upon children, from their birth to their grave, who have never been accused of any crime, and against whom there is not the least suspicion of guilt! When the mother is a slave for no crime, as has always been the case with every African slave mother, as the annals of history furnish no example of the enslavement of children on account of the crimes of the mother, the atrocity seems to be somewhat hightened, if it were possible that the sin of enslavement could be aggravated. Has ever a slave been made such, in all the United States, because the mother was sentenced by law to undergo the penalty of slavery for crime? No such instance ever properly took place; so that innocent children of innocent mothers are constantly punished, by the laws of the slave states and the slaveholders, and are punished as guilty felons.

Here, three millions of innocent beings, guilty of no crime-accused of no crimesuspected of no crime-are punished as felons, or manslayers; and the same unjust sentence is pronounced against their children throughout all time. Is it the will of God, that, if the parents had fallen into the hands of thieves, and had chains on them when the children were born, the children ought to be slaves? If so, it would follow, that all who were born in the political state, against which our fathers rose in 1775, ought to have continued under it; and, therefore, the principle, that all men are created free and equal, must be wrong; or, those to whom the law of Moses was given, having been born of slave parents, were Pharaoh’s lawful property, and the Lord punished him for holding on to his own lawful prop erty. If the wrath of God awaits him who rushes into an 86 w i I

Page 87 view page image

TIIE EN’SLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. African village, and seizes on men and women and makes slaves of them, how can he escape who seizes the child in the arms of the slave mother before it opens its eyes, and makes it a slave for life? 5. The enslavement of children is forbidden in the law of Moses. On the seventh year all Hebrews, who became temporary slaves, were free, or, at the farthest, at the year of jubilee; for the year of jubilee proclaimed liberty to all the inhabitants of the land. Thus the enslaving of children, on account of their parents, is clearly overturned by the law of God as delivered to Moses. 6. To enslave children is contrary to the very spirit of the New Testament. Our Savior came “to preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised.” Can the disciples of such a master inflict the least, much less the greatest of punishments, upon a human being who has never been guilty of any crime? Our Savior took little children in his arms and blessed them. The slaveholders seize on them as a lawful prey-tear them from the bosoms of their distracted moDtl)es-doom them to ignorance and degradation. And so low do they reduce them in the scale of subjection, that they can descend no lower. The maxim of the civil law is, “in servorum conditione nulla est differentiu “-in the condition of slaves there is no difference. 7. It is as unjust to enslave the children of colored people, as the children of the white people. It is as unjust to enslave the children of white or black persons in the slate states, as it would be to enslave them in the free states. The blacks are born as free as the whites; and one black is born as free as another. No human law can justly deprive any one of liberty, which is an inheritance of his birth.

No human legislation can make that which is morally wrong politically right. It would be the same crime for 87

Page 88 view page image

88 TIlE ENSLAVEMENT OF CIIILDREN. individuals to enslave white children, after such laws were made, as it was before. We have the same right in the north to make laws to enslave our children, that the south have to enslave theirs. But, neither we nor they have any more right to make such laws, than we have to attempt to legislate away the laws of God. And this is much worse in the hands of professed Christians and ministers, than in the hands of infidels. And all this is self-evident, and needs no reasoning to establish it, other than to express it in plain terms. The Declaration of Independence asserts this as a self-evident truth: “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal; and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.” The character of the man who enslaves a child, must be fixed by the same standard which decides the character of him who goes to the shores of Africa, and steals or buys stolen men and enslaves them. Neither human laws nor geographical boundaries call change moral principles. If the stolen person, among the Jews, were found in the hand of a man, hlie was pronounced as guilty as the original manstealer, and the sentence, in all cases, was death. Those in whose hands innocent children are found, have in possession stolen children; and they will be held as guilty of death, of moral death, in the eye of the law of God. From this there is no escape, but to restore to the stolen child the possession of himself, and to hold him, not as stolen property to be used for his benefit, but as stolen property to. be restored with the least possible delay to the owner-to the child himself.

How specially atrocious is the sin to make laws to enslave our own children, and then practice these laws over our children and grandchildren, and our relatives by blood! Who are the enslaved mulattoes of the south, but the blood relations of those who enslave them? This is no fabrication

Page 89 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. of abolitionists, or northern fanatics. The parents of these children, and their near and distant relatives, have enslaved them; and this is constantly done, every year, every day, every hour. 8. The enslavement of children is theft continued in. Slaves, in this country, were originally stolen from Africa, or seized by violence, and thus abducted. In the enslave ment of the children of slaves, the same theft is continued. The first man-thief, kidnapper, or manstealer, stole the slaves from Africa; and retaining them in bondage is a recognition of the first act of stealing, and a mere repeti tion or continuance of it.

Every infant born of.n African slave is stolen from its mother, which is as plain an act of manstealing as the first. Where is the difference, whether the child was born in Virginia or Africa, when it becomes a slave?

For example, take two children of the same age, the one born in Africa, the other in Virginia: both, in process of time, become the slaves of the same master, and are equally treated as slaves-is not the condition of both thle same? Now, to enslave is “to convert a freeman into a slave,” or “‘to continue him in a state of slavery.” God made man free; men have made him a slave. All men are created equal-all are, by nature, in possession of liberty. It amounts to the same, whether a freeman be converted into a slave by conquest, by kidnapping, or by the laws of the land. It may be the act of an individual or a community. The very same thinq, in all these modes, is done to a freeman-the act of reducing him to a slave. The act is precisely the same, and the effect of it on the man is precisely the same, were the modes of doing it ten times more numerous than they are or have been-just as murder is the same, whether the act was perpetrated by the sword, the rifle, the bowie-knife, or the halter. It is murder in all these cases. So slavery is the same to the enslaved, whether 8* 89

Page 90 view page image

TIIE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. his liberty was taken from him, and slavery inflicted on him, by secret stealth, open violence, or by following the condition of his much-injured and enslaved mother. A man may be very innocent in becoming, by inheritance, the legal owner of a slave; and the restoration of right to the original owner may, for a time, be impracticable; but none of these things sanction the original wrong, or abolish the moral claim of the original owner; or, in other words, the right of the slave to the freedom of himself. In such case, the leyal owner of the slave may retain, in safekeeping, the stolen property-the enslaved man-till he has it in his power to give him liberty; but he is not to use this property as his own, but in trust for its owner. And the master is at no loss to know who the owner is; for the man or child, who is now his legal slave, is the original, the rightful, and the only owner of himself. 9. Enslaving children is chargeable with all the abominations of slave-growing, as portrayed in the foregoing chlaptcr. The darkest picture on the page of human criminality is that of enslaving children.

This is done for gain. The brutal pleaders for this accursed thing compare mothers to brood-mares, in their comments on the heathen maxim, “The child follows the condition of the mother.” Prospective mothers of the doomedL
infant slaves, are selecte(d and purchased in the market for this purpose, and kept in view of its gains. And where no intention of such deeds enters the hearts of slaveholders, the essential laws of the system secure the very same thing. So that, whether it is done by law, or by the mere will of the owner, the same thing is done. The young brood are slaves from their birth. The law of nature is broken. The nmere disgrazce of this more than heathenish brutishness, is the smallest part of the evil. The manifest sinfuln)ess is the chief thing,. Hence, every one who enslaves childreln, must be content to take all the disgrace and sin which belong to a voluntary 90

Page 91 view page image

TIE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. slave-breeder. From this there is no escape, but by flight from the system which embraces this abomination of slave growing as one of its inseparable, constituent parts. 10. The enslaving of children is a mere substitute for the African slavetrade. How was the system of slavery in this country commenced, and subsequently supplied, till it obtained all the maturity and strength of a powerful system? The answer is plain-from the supplies furnished annually from the African slavetrade. How is slavery now sustained in America? Not by the African slavetrade, but by the American slavetrade of these United States-the constant enslavement of children. Virginia went for the abolition of the African trade, that their home trade might be more profitable in growing young slaves for market. The extreme south were zealous for the African trade. But lhomie consumption gained the day; and from that time till now has engrossed the slave market, and excluded the foreign trade as piracy and sin, punishable with death. ]3ut the home trade of slave-growing has done the same thing, and is, therefore, sinful, if the African trade be sinful. A survey of the number of children enslaved annually, will set this in a clear light. The number of free people reduced to slavery annually, and the manumitted who are re-enslaved, though considerable in itself, is small compared withi the number of children annually enslaved.

In the agg,regate number enslaved every year, the children need only be calculated, for the others are as nothing compared to them. The number of children may be pretty accurately ascertained by the census. As there are now about three millions of slaves in the United States, if twentyfive years will make a generation, then three millions of human beings aie enslaved in the United States every twentyfive years. B,ut, taking thirty years for al generation, then every thirty y(-ars three millions are made slaves, not in Africa, but in the United States, under the flag of liberty. According to 91 pl

Page 92 view page image

TIIE LNSLAVEMENT OF CIIILDREN. this calculation, one hundred thousand are annually enslaved; or, in other words, one hundred thousand free persons are made slaves every year in our free republic! or the number daily deprived of liberty, and reduced to slavery, is two hundred and seventy-four! In our Christian country, where all men are born free and equal, three mnillions are deprived of freedom and converted into slaves every thirty years, one hundred thousand annually, and two hundred and seventy-four daily! “Hail Columbia, happy land!” To make this matter more plain, if plainer it can be, we ask the question, What would the effect be on our slave system, were all born free to continue free, or were no children enslaved? What else would it be, than to sweep away slavery from our midst in one generation? Hence, enslaving children is the support of slavery. The African trade was the first great supplier. Now, our own domestic trade does the work effectually, and supplies annually one hundred thousand fresh victims, to keep up the vilest system that ever saw the sun. 11. Nor can the man who raises another have a right to his services during life. Those who raise orphans are not entitled to their services during life. The services of such, till they are twenty-one, are considered as the price for raising them. Such services parents are allowed for raising their children. And, certainly, slaveholders can not be entitled to any further remuneration. Besides, they generally raise the slaves in a very coarse manner. They hate not the trouble of nursing them, nor do they give them any education. They also receive such services from their parents, as more than compensate for the expenses incurred in supporting the young slaves before they arrive at maturity. Consequently, masters are not entitled to the services of slaves during life, because they have raised them. The man who enslaves another because he has raised him, 92

Page 93 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. violates his rights as much as the manstealer violates the rights of those whom hlie steals from Africa. 12.

Nor can those who purchase slaves have any just title to their offspring, so as to make slaves of them also, without the violation of natural right.

The slaves purchased were themselves unjustly enslaved; for they were either stolen or descended from those who were stolen, and, therefore, none can have any right to buy or sell them. Were the parents justly bound to service during life, that could give no right of enslaving the offspring. Parents have no right to the services of their own children beyond a limited time; and, therefore, are not permitted to hold them in bondage during life, nor to sell them to others for slaves. And if parents who nurse, train, educate, and provide sustenance for their children, have no right to hold their own children as slaves during life, no others can have such right. For it can not be pretended that slaveholders can have as much right to the service of children whom they have neither nursed, educated, or provided for, as parents have to their own offspring. Hence, slavery, which originated in violence and theft, and is perpetuated by means equally as unjust as those in which it originated, is a flagrant violation of the divine law against manstealing. 13. The right of freedom can not be taken away from any innocent human being, without the greatest injustice; although the power of freedom may be taken away for crime. By what law or authority can the right of freedom be taken away? Not by the moral law, which precludes stealing, robbery, and violence; not by the authority of the civil law, for the civil law has no just power to interfere with men’s private rights. The people, the constituents of civil government, never transferred, or could transfer, to their representatives a power over the private rights of men; and civil rulers can never justly give legal power to others, which they did not possess themselves. Slaves, 93

Page 94 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. therefore, have the right to fi’eedom, and the power of enjoying this rirllt is withheld from them by the system of slavery, which proves slaveholding to be downright theft and robbery. 14.

The claim of property in man and in an inanimate object can not stand on the same basis. It is true, slaveholders tell us that “slaves are as truly property as freehold estate.” This is not true. The master’s right, even according to slave laws, is not exactly “that of a fee simple absolute.”

Even slave laws have assumed a power of interference and control which are not assumed in reference to other property. An owner may destroy the life of his oxen, dogs, or horses; and with regard to chattels generally, he may destroy them. In these and such matters, even slave laws throw in their interference, however feeble and unavailing. But the slave may be a Christian, a husband, a wife, a child, a parent. In each of these relations, as well as that of being an accountable agent, he may possess responsibilities of the highest order, which he is bound to fulfill by the law of God, in preference to every other obligation whatever. Now the alleged “freehold right of property in man,” is a palpable violation of the fundamental principles of God’s law. Hence, the assertion of such rights as these, whether by law or otherwise, is an intolerable usurpation on the laws of God and the rights of human nature. When the planters of Demerara complained that the Sunday labor of the slaves was unjustly wrested from them by the interference of the Imperial Parliament, Lord Bathurst replied, “that Sunday was the slaves’ day, to be employed according to the law of God,” and added by expressing the hope, “that no Christian master would so far forget himself as to claim indemnity for what his religion-the law of God-must have taught him he ought never to have required.” By this he pronounced slavery to be a usurpation on the rights of our fellowmen, and a violation of the laws of God. 94

Page 95 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. The keen retort of Daniel O’Connel, in 1831, in the Brit ish Parliament, to Mr. Burge, is worth noticing in this place.

Mr. Burge, a stout pro-slavery advocate, in his speech, took occasion to ask, indignantly, “What! would you come in be tween man and his freehold?”

To this O’Connel, in his reply, made the following prompt retort: “I started, as if something unholy had trampled on my father’s grave, and I exclaimed, with horror,‘A FREEHOLD IN A HUMAN BEING!’” (London Antislavery Reporter, vol. iv, p. 268.) Take another replication of the same sort. In 1832 Sir C. B. Cardington, an extensive slaveowner in the West Indies, in a letter to Mr. Buxton, speaking of the negro, said:’ He is a slave by no act of the planter, but by the laws of England; by the same laws he is my absolute property, of which I can not justly be deprived without compensation.” Mr. Buxton replies: “You call the slave your absolute property. Here is precisely the point on which we are at issue. I venture to call your property in him, however acquiried, A USURPATION. I deny that any human being, or body of men, can have had power to give him to you. My creed is, that to every individual born into the world belongs the absolute riyht to his own limbs-his own labor-his own liberty-to his wife-to his children-to his envjoyment of entire freedom-AND TO THE

UNRESTRICTED WORSHIP OF HIS GOD. I know, in short, no claim you can plead to extort fiom him unrequited labor, which an Algerine might not plead with equal force to hold in bondage his Christian captives -ABSOLUTE

PROPERTY IN OUR FELLOWrMEN!” (Antislavery Reporter, vol. v, pp. 307-309.

London, 1833.) To the same purpose is the following declaration of Wilberforce, uttered June 25, 1824: “Every man is endowed with various faculties, for the use of which he is responsible to his Creator. He has no right to transfer that responsibility to another; and for another to take it away from him, 95

Page 96 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. except for some crime which justifies such a punishment, is a downright infringement on the rights of God, as well as a usurpation of the rights of man. Slavery in any condition and any form is insufferable, because it is, in fact, to give to man that which the corrupt nature of man ought not to possess-absolute and uncontrolled power over a fellow-creature.” (Antislavery Reporter for 1824, London, p. 99.]

15. Now a few words as to the just riyht of the master to the slave, especially the slave child. There are some whose notions of justice are so confused, and confounded by slavery, as to suppose the master has something like an honest title to the person of the slave. We have been so long accustomed to talk of “my slave,” and “your slave,” and of what he would fetch, if sold, that we are apt to imagcine that he is really yours or mine, and that we have a just right to keep, sell, or give him away by gift or will. Let us test this point by a very plain parable. Here is a very valuable commodity; and here are two claimants for it-a white man and a black man. The commodity is the body of the black man. The white man says, “it is minlle.” The black man says, “it is mine.” Now, the question is, if every man had his own, to whom would that black body belong? The claim of the black man to his own body is just this: God gave him his own body. Ile holds it by God’s grant. Will any one say, hlie came by his body in an illegal manner? Does any man suspect, that he played the knave and purloined his limbs? It must be admitted, t]ie negro has a pretty good prima facie claim to his own body. If any man thinks he has a better, the onus probandi lies on him. Next we come to the claim of the white man to the body of the black man. What is the foundation of your right? It shill be the best that the case will admit of. You received him from your father. Very good! Your father 96

Page 97 view page image

THIE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. bought him from a neighboring slaveholder.

The slave holder bought him from a trader, in the District of Colum bia.

The trader bought him from a man-merchant in Africa. But how did the man-merchant obtain the black man? He stole him; he kidnapped him. The very root of your claim is theft, robbery, violence, inconceivable wickedness. If any thing ever was proved on earth by evidence, it was proved, and is now universally acknowledged, that the method of obtaining slaves in Africa was theft, robbery, violence, man ~tealing, and murder.

If your slave came direct from Africa your right to his person is absolutely nothing. But your claim to the child born in Kentucky, Virginia, or Mary land is still less. The new-born infant has done-could have done-nothing to forfeit his right to freedom. And to talk about rights, justice, equity, and law, as connected with slavery, is to talk downright nonsense. If we had no interest in the case, and were only speaking of the conduct of other nations or individuals, we would all use the same language; and we should all speak of slavery as we now speak of the piratical slavetrade-that is, we would call slavery in the United States rank, naked, flagrant, and undisguised injustice. Whatever may be the excuse for the master against the cruel slave-laws which first enslaves the infant, and then forbids his emancipation, he can pretend to no claim to the person of a child because he happens to be born of a slave mother, who, in her turn, was unjustly deprived of her freedom, and prevented from exercising her just right to it. (See Mr. James Buxton’s speech before house of Parliament, May 15, 1823, p. 19. London, 1823.) 16.

The slaveholder, therefore, has no just title to the slave; but, on the other hand, the slave has a just title to himself. Property that is stolen, or taken by unjust violence, though it pass through a thousand hands, even by honest purchase, still belongs to the original owner; and to him, according to the plainest principles of justice, it must revert. 9

97 .19 ,

Page 98 view page image

THIE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. The ancestors of the Africans were originally free, but were unjustly seized and sold into bondage; and, by an unjust and arbitrary power, their offspring are still enslaved, and are the same as stolen property. As no one had a right to steal them, so no one since has had any just right to sell, buy, or hold them as slaves, and the title to them is properly the title to stolen property, the owner of which is present, is undoubtedly known, and now claims it, as in the case of the black and white man, given heretofore, contending about the owner of the black man’s body. And, though the state authorizes such injustice, it is, nevertheless, unjust. The man who will be just no farther than the state compels him, is a rogue in his heart. And the man who will take away the liberty of another because the laws permit him, would also take the property of another, if similar permission were given him. 17. It is objected here, “that if slaveholders have no just title to their slaves, because they were bought from kidnappers, that argument would prove that our title to lands, which were by force or fraud wrested from the Indians, is also null.” To this we reply, that justice and right law give stolen property to the true owner when he can be found. But if no owner is found, occupancy and possession give a just title. If an Indian can show as good a title to the land as the colored man can to his body, then the Indian should in justice have the land. The colored man was the original possessor of his own body; he now, by presenting his body, furnishes the true claimant. And as he was, without doubt, the original possessor, and is the present occupier, he is the true owner of himself; unless the claimant can show that he has forfeited his right to his liberty by a crime against the state. And even here the slave master is ousted, because the public criminal has forfeited his liberty to the state, and is, therefore, consigned first to the jail, and then to the penitentiary. The state is 98 ..i A~c~

Page 99 view page image

TTIE ENSLAVEMENT OF CIhILDREN. then his owner, for safekeeping, to prevent him firom injuring society. Not, however, his owner for gain, but for the public good. Convicts are not sent to the plantations of masters to work for their benefit, but they are consigned to the public officers for safekeeping. 18. Besides, every case in which a child is made a slave, is a new case of enslavement, as original as that which occurs in the case of an African stolen from Africa; for the fact of the mother being a slave or free has nothing to do with the matter. Every child enslaved is, therefore, an act of original theft, or robbery, very easily traced out, in almost all cases; and in the case of infants and minors, no man can ever claim them as slaves, because their infancy or minority are themselves proofs that they have never by crime forfeited their liberty, and, therefore, they now possess it; and all such as even claim infants or minors as slaves, are, by primafacie evidence, guilty of attempted theft or robbery, and ought, therefore, to be punished severely by fine, imprisonment, or even death, for such an outrage on the liberties of the human race. 19. The following, from the pen of Mr. Wesley, will close this chapter: “Had your father, have you, has any man living, a right to use another as a slave? It can not be, even setting revelation aside. Neither war nor contract can give any man such a property in another, as he has in his sheep or oxen. Much less is it possible that any child of man should ever be born a slave. Liberty is the right of every human being, as soon as he breathes the vital air; no human law can deprive him of that right which he derives from the law of nature. If, therefore, you have any regard for justice, to say nothing of mercy or of the revealed law of God, render to all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is dueto every child(l of man, to every partaker of human nature. et none serve you but by his own act and deed ly his 99 .a

Page 100 view page image

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN. own voluntary choice. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion. Be gentle toward all men, and see that you invariably do to every one as you would he should do to you.” 100 I

Page 101 view page image

PART II. DEPRIVATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS. 41

Page 102 view page image

I Pn I

Page 103 view page image

CHAPTER I. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-NATURAL RIGHTS-PERSONAL LIB ERTY-PERSONAL

SECURITY-RIGHT OF PROPERTY. 1. ACCORDING to Blackstone-book i, ch. 1-the primary and principal objects of law are JURA, RIGHTS, and INJURIE, WRONGS. Rights are either the rights of persons, which concern, and are annexed to, the persons of men; or they are rights of things, or such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things connected with his person. Wrongs also are, first, private wrongs, which, being an infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and in law are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which, being a branch of general or public rights, affect the whole community, and in law are called crimes and misdemeanors. Slavery requires, in its very nature, acts of injustice, which infringe on the inalienable rights of mankind; while it also inflicts injuries which form a large class of great wrongs to the slave. So that slavery is a deprivation of just, inalienable rights; and also inflicts great wrongs or injuries on the innocent. We will first go through the leading acts of injustice of which it is chargeable, and next consider the principal wrongs with which it is justly accused. 2. Personal rights are either absolute or relative. Absolute rights are such as appertain to men as individuals; relative rights are those which belong to men as members of society. The absolute rights of individuals are such as belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The ABSOLUTE RIGIITS of man are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the NATURAL LIBERTY OF MANKIND. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, 103

Page 104 view page image

PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, without any consent or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation. And this natural liberty can not be justly restrained by human laws, any farther than is necessary for the general advantage of the public. According to Blackstone-book i, p.

130-the absolute natural rights are three in number; namely, 1. The right of PERSONAL SECURITY; 2. The right of PERSONAL LIBERTY; and, 3. The right of PRIVATE PROPERTY. All these three great fights are the gift of God himself to every human being, as is clear from the Bible, and as the law of nature, as discovered by natural indications, plainly demonstrates. No one can alienate these rights from himself or others, or destroy or infringe them, without committing a crime against God’s laws. Nor can they be lawfully taken from any human being, except as a punishment for the commission of crime. Nor can they be lawfully subjected to any human check or control, except so far as to prevent their exercise interfering with their use by others. The.first absolute right, or that of personal security, consists, according to Blackstone, in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. The second absolute right, or that of personal liberty, consists in the free and uninterrupted privilege of locomotion, or of going, staying, returning, whither, where, when, and as we please. The third absolute right, or that of private property, consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution. These three great absolute natural rights belong equally to all mankind, whatever their circumstances, ages, or conditions may be. The RELATIVE RIGHTS-vide Blackstone, book i, pp. 123, 422-which concern the relations that men sustain to each 104

Page 105 view page image

AND THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY. other, are, 1. The rights of master and servant-not master and slave; 2. Of husband and wife; 3. Of parent and child; 4. Of guardian and ward. All these relations and the rights connected with them are the appointment of God, and are not to be changed without great perversion and sin against God. There are two other classes of rights, which may be called CIVIL RIGHTS, and CONVENTIONAL RIGHTS. The benefit, if not the possession, of these belongs to all mankind, and they ought to be possessed and used as just occasion requires, by all persons who can justly and lawfully possess them, and who are capable of using them properly. The CIVIL RIGHTS are auxiliary to the great absolute natu ral rights, and are necessary to protect and sustain them in full exercise. These are the rights to petition government for the redress of grievances; the right to apply to courts of justice for redress of injuries; the right to bear arms; the right of suffrage; the right to testify as witnesses; the right to serve as jurymen; the right to acquire education; the right to freedom of speech and of the press; the rights of conscience; and some others. The great absolute natural rights can not be protected and enjoyed without the assist ance of tlhese minor rights-as the histories of all despotic governments show. This fact, and the fact that we are by nature, on arrival at years of discretion, capable of exercising these rights, proves, by necessary implication, that these rights are also the gift of God, and of course inalienable. (Vide Blackstone i, 141.) The CONVENTIONAL RIGHTS are such as are acquired by contract or agreement with others-such as the right to marry; the right to use the services or property of others; the right of social intercourse; the right to wages, rent, or profit; the right to collect our debts, etc., and a great variety of others, corresponding with the agreements which men make with each other. These rights, when properly 105

Page 106 view page image

106 PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, acquired, are sacredly enforced by the law of God as other rights. All these rights, taken collectively, make up the sum total of what are called HUMAN RIGIITS. And they are so called because they belong to human beings only; yet to all human beings. 3. All these just rights of mankind are divine rights; that is, they are guaranteed to man by the laws of God. And any act which annuls or infringes on these natural or divine rights, is a wrony, crime, or sin; because it is an act against the law of God, and committed in contempt and violation of the law. The Bible recognizes and asserts the existence of the natural rights of men in the strongest manner, by denouncing and threatening with punishment those who violate them. A critical analysis of the denunciations of the Bible will show, that they are all directed against infringements of the security, the liberty, and the property of others, and of the relative and other just commoll law rights of others.

The technical distinctions and mere language of the common law are not found in the Bible; but the denunciations against the violation of these rights are far more frequent, minute, and severe in the Bible than the penalties of the common law are. And this could not be the case, had not these rights been inherited as the gifts of God, and guaranteed to them by the divine law. This matter is put in a very clear light by the distinguished jurist, Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, in the section of his introduction to that great work. We select the following from this illustrious man: “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.” (P. 39.) “And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for every thing, it is necessary that hlie should in all pI

Page 107 view page image

AND THE RIGHT OF PRIOPERTY. points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.” (Id.) “The law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dic tated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if con trary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” (P.

41.) “Upon these two foundations-the law of nature and the law of revelation-depend all human laws. That is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. To instance in the case of murder-this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrated by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime.

Those human laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in joro conscientice - by the decision of conscience-to abstain froln its perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and divine.” (Pp. 42, 43.) “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural ri(,ghts-such as life and liberty-need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” (P. 54.) As to bad laws, it may be said that it is the duty of the legislature to revise the enactments; and it is the duty of the good citizen to obey them till this is done. On this 107

Page 108 view page image

PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, important point, we quote the following, by Chief Justice Christian, attached to Blackstone’s Commentaries: “Lord Chief Justice Hobart has also advanced that even an act of Parliament made against natural justice, so as to make a man a judge in his own cause, is void in itself-for jura naturce sunt immutabilia-and they are leyes legum.

(Hob. 87.) With deference to those high authorities, I should conceive that in no case whatever can a judge oppose his own opinion and authority to the clear will and declaration of the legislature. His province is to interpret and obey the mandates of the supreme power of the state. And if an act of Parliament-if we could suppose such a case-should, like the edict of Herod, command all the children under a certain age to be slain, the judge ought to resign his office rather than be auxiliary to its execution; but it could only be declared void by the same legislative power by which it was ordained. If the judicial power was competent to decide that an act of Parliament was void because it was contrary to natural justice, upon an appeal to the house of lords, the inconsistency would be the consequence that, as judges, they must declare void what, as legislators, they had enacted should be valid.” The learned Judge himself declares, in p. 91, “If the Parliament will positively enact a thing to be done which is unreasonable, I know of no power in the ordinary forms of the Constitution that is vested with authority to control it.” (1 Black.

Com., Introduction, sec. ii, p. 41, note 3.) Now slavery annuls and tramples on all the natural rights granted to all men by their Creator. It is a tremendous sin; but, like many other sins, such as murder, idol worship, etc., it has been common in all barbarous ages and nations. It is a heathenish and barbarous cruelty, utterly inconsistent with enlightened and pure Christianity. The following principles of the common law, in addition to those given by Blackstone, may be perused to advantage, before we proceed further: 108

Page 109 view page image

AND THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY. ” The law favors liberty.” (Wood. Coke.) “What is invalid from the beginning, can not be made valid by the length of time.” (Noyes’ Maxims, p. 3.) “The law, therefore, which supports slavery, and opposes liberty, must necessarily be condemned as cruel; for every feeling of human nature advocates liberty. Slavery is in troduced through human wickedness; but God advocates liberty by the law which hle has given to man. Wherefore, liberty, torn from man, always seeks to return to him; and it is the same with every thing which is deprived of its native freedom. On this account it is, that the man who does not favor liberty must be regarded as impious and cruel; and hence the Englishlt law always favors liberty.” (Chancellor Fortescue. De Caudibus Legum, c. 42, p. 101.) 4. Slavery is at variance with personal liberty, the absolute, natural, inherent right of all men. Slavery deprives a man of himself, and makes him a chattel or thing. The slave, being a “personal chattel,” is at all times liable to be sold absolutely, or mortgaged, or leased, at the will of his master. He may be left by will to heirs, and taken by creditors or legatees. No restraint, except a partial one in Louisiana, is imposed upon the sale and transfer of slaves, not only at the will of his master, but against his will, as in sheriffs’ sales, when the slaves are seized to satisfy debts. Husbands and wives are separated. Parents and children are separated. The slave is regarded as property, and sold as such, just as a horse, cow, or sheep is sold. He is sold by auction, at the pleasure of the master, or by the sheriff when seized as debt, in connection with horses, cattle, land, or any thing else. He may be sold without any regard to the relations of husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister. He may be bartered for goods, sheep, horses, cotton, or any thing else; and all these things are done constantly in the south. Advertisements of such sales meet the eye in every southern 10 109

Page 110 view page image

PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECUIRITY, paper. And there are in all the regions of slavery, slavemerchants, both of the wholesale and retail classes; and this is part and parcel of the system of slavery. And whenever there are scruples of conscience against this traffic, the scruples are properly against the system of slavery; and the very existence of these scruples, which are very common among conscientious slaveholders, proves that a good conscience is at war with slavery, as a sinful system, because it provides for and authorizes such sales, and does not prevent them. Against this essential element of slavery, which makes man property, we furnish the following objections: (1.) The holding of man as property is contrary to the right idea of property. What one man owns can not belong to another.

The consequence, then, of holding a man as property is, that he can have no right to himself. His limbs, his mind, his strength, belong to another, and not to himself; all of which is absurd. (2.) The inalienable rights of man are violated by slavery, especially his liberty, because he becomes entirely in the power of another, by the action of slavery; and hence his natural liberty is destroyed. (3.) If one man be sold as property, so may all men, or any man; for if the right to liberty is founded, not on the essential attributes of men, as rational and moral beings, but on certain adventitious circumstances, then every human being, by a change of circumstances, may be enslaved, and treated as property. (4.) Making men property leads to treating them as property. Hence the cruel and degrading treatment which slaves often receive from their masters. They are called stock; children are called increase; mothers are called breeders. Such is the phraseology of slavery. Mr. Summers, of Virg,inia, in the Legislature of that state, on January 26, 1832, says: “When. in the sublime lessons of Christianity, 110

Page 111 view page image

AND TIIE RIGIIT OF PROPERTY. he-the slaveholder-is taught to do to others as he would have others do to him, he never dreams that the degraded negro is within the pale of that holy canon.” Jefferson, in his letter to Mr.

Coles, of August 25, 1814, says of slaveholders: “Nursed and educated in the daily hlbit of seeing the degraded condition, both bodily and mental, of these unfortunate beings, few minds have yet doubted that they are as legitimate subjects of property as their horses or cattle.” (5.) Hebrew servants were not property. Children were sometimes taken for their parents’ debts; but there is no instance of servants seized for the debts of their masters. Various kinds of property were levied on by creditors; servants were not. Lost property was to be restored to the owner; runaway servants not. Since, therefore, servants were not liable to the ordinary uses of property among the Hebrews, we may conclude they were not considered property. If it be a violation of the rights of man to deprive men of their political freedom, the injustice is much more flagrant when we rob them of personal liberty-as is the case with the slave. He has no right to his wife and children, nor even to himself. His very body, his muscles, his bones, his flesh, are all the property of another. The movements of his limbs and hands are regulated by the will of his master.

If he has mental qualifications, skill, and dexterity, these too are his master’s. He may be sold like a beast, or like the cotton, or sugar, or rice which his sweat and toil earn. I-Ie may be transported in chains, like a felon. He may be whipped and tormented in endless ways of punishment. Nay, if he is religious and pious, the grace of God in him is also sold, and his price is enhanced even by this as well as by his muscular strength, or his superior skill in some haLndcraft. A religious slave is of more value than a vicious one, and sells for more. Nay, if he be a preacher, his value 111 , —

Page 112 view page image

PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, is still greater, because of his influence on the morals and industry of his fellow-slaves. The deprivation of personal liberty is so complete that it destroys the rights of conscience.

Slavery arms the master with power to prevent his slave from worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience. The master may legally restrain his slaves from assembling to hear the instructions of divine truth. The condition of a subject is enviable, compared to that of a slave. Theirs is a political yoke, and is light, compared with the heavy personal yoke which bears down the oppressed slave. We will here insert an extract from Lord Brougham’s speech before the British Parliament, on the subject of West India emancipation, delivered July 13, 1830; and another extract firom Buxton: “Tell me not of rights. Talk not of the property of the planter in his slaves. I deny the right. I acknowledge not the property. The principles, the feelings of our common nature rise in rebellion against it. Be the appeal made to the understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same that rejects it. In vain you tell me of laws that sanction such a claim. There is a law above all the enactments of human codes-the same throughout the world-the same in all times-such as it was before the daring genius of Columbus pierced the night of ages, and opened to one world sources of power, wealth, and knowledge; to another all unutterable woes: such it is at this day. It is the law, written by the finger of God on the heart of man; and’ by that law, eternal, unchangeable, while men despise fraud, and lothe rapine, and abhor blood, they shall reject with indignation the wild and guilty fancy, that man can hold property in man. In vain you appeal to treaties-to covenants between nations. The covenants of the Almighty, whether the old covenant or the new, denounce such unholy pretensions. To those laws did they of old refer, who 112

Page 113 view page image

AND THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY. maintained the African trade. Such treaties did they cite, and not untruly; for by one shameful compact you bartered the glories of Blenheim for the traffic in blood. Yet, in despite of law and of treaty, that infernal traffic is now destroyed, and its votaries put to death, like other pirates. How came this change to pass? Not assuredly by Parliament leading the way; but the country at length awoke; the indignation of the people was kindled; it descended in thunder, and smote the traffic, and scattered its guilty profits to the winds. Now, then, let the planters beware! Let their assemblies beware! Let the government at home beware! Let the Parliament beware! The same country is once more awake-awake to the condition of negro slavery; the same indignation kindles in the bosom of the same people; the same cloud is gathering that annihilated the slavetrade; and, if it shall descend again, they on whom its crash may fall will not be destroyed before I have warned them; but I pray that their destruction may turn away from us the more terrible judgments of God!” (London Antislavery Reporter, vol. iii, pp. 332, 333, for July, 1830.) “Is there no difference between a vested interest in a house or a tenement and a vested interest in a human being? no difference between a right to brick and mortar and a right to the flesh of man? a right to torture his body and to degrade his mind at your good will and pleasure? There is this difference: the right to the house originates in law, and is reconcilable to justice; the claim-for I will not call it a right-to the man originated in robbery, and is an outrage upon every principle of justice and every tenet of religion.” (Speech of Fowel Buxton in the British Parliament.) “The owners of slaves are licensed robbers, and not the just proprietors of what they claim: freeing them is not de priving them of property, but restoring it to the right owner. It is suffering the unlawful captive to escape. It is not 10* 113

Page 114 view page image

114 PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, wrongingff the masters, but doing justice to the slave restori(ng him to himself. Emancipation would only take away property that is its own property, and not ours-prop erty that has the same right to possess us as we have to possess it-property that has the same right to convert our children into dogs, and calves, and colts, as we have to con vert theirs into beasts-property that may transfer our children to strangers by the same right that we transfer theirs.” (Dr. Rice, speech before the Kentucky Convention which framed the Constitution of the state.) 5. Slavery is at war with the inalienable natural right of holding property and enjoying it. It is the absolute, inherent right of every man to exercise the privilege of acquiring, holding, enjoying, and disposal of all his honest acquisitions, without any control or diminution, under such restraints of law and constitution as preserve the same inherent right in the same degree to all others. (1.) At the creation of man God gave him, in the distribution of his gifts, no right to hold property in man; but he did give him a right to possess property in other portions of the creation. He gave man a right to acquire and hold property in land, and in beasts, and to the proceeds of his own labor. All men are set over the works of God’s hands, and have an equal right to acquire and hold property; and consequently man can not have the right to hold property in his fellowmen, or in that which is properly another’s. The Bible is full of denunciations against those who withhold from others the fruit of their exertions. “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work,” Jer.

xxii, 13. See also James v, 4; Lev. xix, 13; Deut. xxiv, 14, 15. A wrong act does not become right because it is practiced often and on thousands; nor because it is done systematically and by authority of the laws of the land. None of

Page 115 view page image

AND THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY. these things can excuse us for wronging our neighbor of the fruit of his labor. (2.) “Slaves have no legal rights of property in things real or personal, and whatever property they may acquire be longs, in point of law, to their master.” (Stroud, pp. 45-50.) This is the substance of the slave laws, with scarcely any modifications from the stern proposition in which Mr. Stroud expresses it, as any one may see, who will consult the authorities quoted or cited by him; and all this is confirmed by the decisions of courts. The general practice, too, comports with law and the judicial decisions; and those who practice differently are suspected, and must act with due caution, or, at least, they act independently, or in opposition to the laws in the case. As stated above, nothing is clearer, from the Bible, than that a man has a right to the avails of his own labor. This, in reason, is founded on the right a man has to hinmself, and, of course, to all that he himself can honestly acquire. But as slavery deprives a man of himself, it, of necessity, deprives its victim of the exercise of himself, and all the fruits of that exercise. We may notice the extent of this robbery, in some of its leading particulars. In general, slaves are deprived of the comforts and conveniences of life, suitable to rational, intelligent, and moral beings. We will notice some of the particulars embraced under this general head. (3.) “The master may determine the kind, and degree, and time of labor, to which the slave shall be subjected.” (St-oud, pp.

26-80.) In most of the slaveholding states the laws are silent on the time employed in labor-the states of Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi excepted. The law of Georgia forbids “the requiring greater labor from such slave or slaves than he, she, or they are able to perform.” But, as the testimony of a colored person can 115 f,r

Page 116 view page image

116 PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, not be received against a white person, and because the charge, in this case, is of a criminal nature, every thing must be strictly proved. The law itself must be construed strictly. It is next to impossible to convict the master in such cases. In the negro act of South Carolina, of 1740, the preamble declares, “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.” The act then prescribes the labor not to exceed “fifteen hours in twentyfour hours, from the 25th of March to the 25th day of September; or more than fourteen hours in twentyfour hours, from the 25th day of September to the 25th day of March;” and the penalty for such offense is from five to twenty pounds currency. In Louisiana, “the slaves shall be allowed half an hour for breakfast, during the whole year. From the 1st day of May to the 1st day of November they shall be allowed two hours for dinner; and from the 1st day of November to the 1st day of May, one hour and a half for dinner. Provided, however, that the owners who will themselves take the trouble of causing to be prepared the meals of their slaves, be, and they are hereby authorized to abridge by half an hour per day the time fixed for their rest.” The laws of both Louisiana and South Carolina, as well as those of Georgia, are wholly inoperative, and must give way before the cupidity of the master.”

The fifteen hours a day allowed by South Carolina is an excessive amount of labor. The hard-working laborers of Europe are mostly confined to ten hours a day. The Legislatures of Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia have decided that convicts shall not work more than “eight hours in the months of November, December, and January; nine hours in the months of February and October; and ten hours in

Page 117 view page image

AND TIE RIGHT OF PROPERTY. the rest of the year.” Thus the convicts in prisons, who are convicted felons, whose PUNISHMENT was designed to consist principally of HARD LABOR, are not worked over ten hours a day at most, and on an average about nine. Yet the slave of South Carolina, under a law professing to extend humanity toward him, may be subjected to unremitting toil for fifteen hours within the same period. (4.) Slavery deprives a man of the fruits of his own labor. The labor of the hands is the principal source of profit to a vely large portion of the human family; and to deprive them of this is to deprive them of every thing. And were it even true, that the slave does less work than the free laborer, the case is not altered; because slavery robs a man of the fruit of what he does, whether more or less. To say he has an equivalent in food and clothing, is not true; because no master apportions work in proportion to the value of food and clothing. Nor will it do to affirm that the equivalent is rendered to the wife and children of the slave; because the slave properly has no wife or children, for these belong to his master.

Nor will the equivalent be rendered by provision for sickness or old age; because the slave never agreed to work all his days for such a consideration; and the master exacts for himself and his family an excess beyond the remuneration that would be paid in food, clothing, and the other considerations mentioned above. The labor of the slave is exacted that the master and his family should live by it, and that they might live in luxury and idleness. The slave must work hard and be always poor, that his master and family may be rich and idle. It is true, the slave can not be made to do the work of a freeman, because he wants the spirit and motive of a freeman. (5.) The slave is not only made property himself, deprived of the right to hold property, and robbed of the fruits of his own labor, but, as a consequence, he is deprived of the comfortable enjoyments of life. His food, 117 ~ ~

Page 118 view page image

118 PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY, his clothing, his dwelling-every thing pertaining to himare all of inferior quality. His clothing is mostly of poor quality, or such as his master deems dishonorable longer to wcear.

His dwelling is rude, uncomfortable, as the mere arbitrary gift of his master. His food is either scanty or of inferior quality; or if good, it is mostly the offals of his master’s table. (6.) Slavery deprives men of wages. This is every-where in Scripture forbidden. (7.) Hence, slavery is a system of robbery. The master may not design this, or be conscious of having done such a wrong to the slave. As the slave, according to slave laws, is considered as having nothing, the slaveholder does not suspect himself of robbery. It is not, however, true, that the slave possesses nothing; for he has a soul and body, the gift of God; and, as his soul and body are his own, so also is his mental skill and bodily force his own; and the fruit of his labor is his own. To take these from the slave-the fruit of his labor and skill-is in fact to rob him. To take from a man his whole estate, the fruits of years of toil, would be a great wrong. But this would be a small offense compared with seizing the man himself, and appropriating to our use his limbs, faculties, strength, labor, by which all property is obtained. Nor can it be justly.said that the slave receives an equivalent, that he is fed and clothed, and is not, therefore, robbed. But suppose another to wrest from us a valuable possession, and pay his own price-we would think ourselves robbed, and the law would pronounce such a man a robber. Besides, will the supposed equivalent be any thing like just, when the laborer himself is held as property, and all his earnings are declared to be the property of his master? If it be said that many masters do render an equivalent for the labor of the slave, as to property-no doubt this is true in some respects-still, human rights are denied. The III , -

Page 119 view page image

AND THE RIGrIT OF PROPEIRTlY. slave lies wholly at the mercy of anotlher; and this, in most cases, will result in wrong. Besides, there can be no equiv alent for owning the slave himself, except to restore him to himself; that is, by setting him free. To pay him for his labor merely, will barely discharge the debt due to labor, and this alone. His restoration to liberty is the only equiv alent that can be rendered for the wrong of slavery, which robs a man of himself first, and then proceeds next to deprive him of the fruits of his labor. 6. Slavery is at variance with the right of personal secu rity. Personal security, an absolute, inalienable right of man, secures to him the free and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. Life is the immediate gift of God, and is a right inherent by nature in every individual. A man’s limbs, as well as his other members, are also the gift of God, to enable him to protect and provide for himself and family. The life and members of a man are of such high value in the estimation of all just law, that it pardons homicide if committed in order to protect them. And even deeds and contracts formally executed, if forced by a well-grounded apprehension of losing life or members of the body, in case of non-compliance, may be afterward voided. Just law not only regards life and members, and protects every man in the enjoyment of them, but also furnishes lhim with every thing necessary for their support. The natural life, being the immediate gift of God, can not justly be disposed of or destroyed by any individual, neither by the person himself nor by any other of his fellow-creatures, merely upon their own authority. Yet, by the Divine permission it may be forfeited for the breach of thl)ose laws of society which am enforced by the Divine authority, and called capital punishments. Thile security of his reputation or good name from the 11 i1 at 119 p

Page 120 view page image

120 PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RIGHT OF PROPERTY. arts of detraction and slander, are rights to which every man is entitled by reason and natural justice; since without these it is impossible to have the perfect enjoyment of any other advantage or right. (See Blackstone, book i, pp.

129-134.) The laws of slavery have little regard to the security of life, the members of the body, health, and reputation of the slave, that he may enjoy them; and hence these, in reference to the ownership of them by the slave, are held in low esteem by slave laws, and, therefore, are slightly secured to their rightful owner, or, rather, they are not thus secured at all. The principal security for the life, body, health, and reputation of the slave is for the benefit of the master, either to enrich him, or accommodate him, or minister to his passions. I

Page 121 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. CIIAPTER II. DEPRIVATION OF

RIGHlTS-EDUCATION. 1. TIlE benefits of education are withheld from the slave. This is done by express statutary laws, making it penal to teach him to read or write, or aid in doing it, or causing it to be done, as no provisions are made for the instruction of the slave. Or where no express laws forbid instruction, citstoii governs, and the custom is to let the s laves grow up without any instruction from books. Hence, the general sentiment in the slave states, whether produced by law or usage, or both, well comports with what Sir William Berkley, Governor of Virginia in 1671, said: “I thank God that there are no free schools nor printingpresses, and I hope we shall not have them these hundred years.” In no country is education more highly valued, or its benefits more generally diffused, than in the United States. The constitutions of nearly all the states provide for seminaries and schools, adequate to the wants of all. And the common schools of the free states are truly the colleges of the people. 2.

A different policy grew up with the growth of the slave states. In none of these is there any provision made by law, for the education of persons of color, whether slaves or freemen. On the contrary, the benefits of education are withheld from the slave, and, of consequence, from the free colored man. South Carolina was first in legislation to continue the ignorance of the slaves. As early as 1740, this state, by statute, enacted that slaves should not be taught to read or wIite(, or employed as scribes in any manner of writing, uinder the penalty of ~100 fine. (Stroud, p.

88.) In 1800 South Carolina enacted, that it would be an 11 121

Page 122 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. “unlawful assembly” for any slaves or free negroes, either by themselves or with white persons, “to meet together for the purpose of mental instruction,” under a penalty of “twenty lashes upon such slaves,” etc. (Stroud, p. 89.) But the law of South Carolina, which took effect April, 1834, and passed the previous winter, entitled “an act to amend the laws in relation to slaves and free persons of color,” seems to be a union of all the former laws of South Carolina in this matter. We make the following extracts from this barbarous act: “Section 1. Be it by the honorable the senate, and the house of representatives, now met and sitting in General Assembly, and by the authority of the same be it enacted: If any person shall hereafter teach any slave to read or write, or shall aid or assist in teaching any slave to read or write, such person, if a free white person, upon conviction thereof, shall, for each and every offense against this act, be fined not exceeding $100, and imprisoned not more than six months; or, if a free person of color, shall be whipped not exceeding fifty lashes, and fined not exceeding $50, at the discretion of the court of magistrates and freeholders before which such free person is tried; and if a slave, shall be whipped at the discretion of the court, not exceeding fifty lashes; the informer to be entitled to one-half of the fine, and to be a competent witness. And if any free person of color or slave shall keep any school or other place of instruction, for teaching any slave or free person of color to read or write, such free person of color or slave shall.be liable to the same fine, imprisonment, and corporeal punishment, as are by this section imposed and inflicted on free persons of color and slaves for teaching slaves to read or write. “Sec. 2. If any person shall employ or keep as a clerk, any slave or free person of color, or shall permit any slave or free person of color to act as a clerk or salesman in or 122

Page 123 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHIITS-EDUCATION. about any shop, store, or house used for trading, such person shall be liable to be indicted therefor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined, for each and every offense, not exceed ing one hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding six months; the informer to be a competent witness, and to be entitled to one-half of the fine.” The things intended to be prevented by this act are, that no colored person, whether free or a slave, shall learn to rea(d or write, or be clerks or salesmen. The acts punishable according to the act are, “to teach, or aid or assist in teaching colored persons to read or write, or to employ them as clerks or salesmen.” The penalties inflicted on whites for transgressing this law are a fine of 8100, and six months’ imprisonment. The penalty on a free colored person is whipping, not to exceed fifty lashes, and fine, not to exceed fifty dollars; and on a slave, fifty lashes. An act was passed in Georgia in 1770 similar to that passed in South Carolina in 1740, with the difference that the fine in Georgia was ~20, in the place of ~100. Virginia, in her revised code of 1819, reiterates former laws, as follows: “That all meetings or assemblages of slaves, or free negroes or mulattoes mixing and associating with such slaves at any meetinghouse, or houses, or any other place, etc., in the night, or at any school or schools for teaching them reading or writing, either in the day or nighlt, under whatsoever pretext, shall be deemed an unlawful assembly.” (Stroud, p. 88.) This practically amounts to the same with the laws of South Carolina and Georgia. And in those states where laws may not be as stringent as those in South Carolina and Georgia, custom has become the law, and this is universally against the instruction of the negro. Besides, the life of the slave is entirely devoted to the service of his master, so that his time and attention are 123

Page 124 view page image

124 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. constantly devoted to his service.

Laws make not only no provision for the instruction of the slave, but, on the contrary, forbid it. The slave has neither books, instructor, nor encouragement to learn to read. Hence, he is (loomed to remain forever ignorant of thlc benefits of education. 3. The result of this treatment, as might be expected, is, that the slaves grow tip in ignorance. In the eighth annual report for 1842, of the Association for the religious instruction of the negroes in Liberty county, Ge,rgia, we find the following statements from the slaveholders themnselves: “The ignorance of those who have not been brought up in the Sunday schools-and of such we have a large number-is astonishingly great, and my spirit sinks within me when I behold it, and see how little is done to remove it,” (p. 6.) “They [thie negroes] are exceedingly ignorant, as a people, and consequently whatever there may be in outward appearance to strike the eye, is calculated to produce more impression upon them than the most palpable fact in the abstract,” (p. 14.) The synod of Kentucky, in 1835, held, in their address, the following languacge in reference to the education of slaves in Kentuckly: “The present state of instruction among this race answers exactly to what we might thus naturally anticipate. Throughout our whole land, so far as we can learn, there is but one school in ivwhichl, during the week, slaves can be taught. Tlhe light of three or four Sabbath schools is seen, glimnmering throurgh the darkness that covers the black population of a whole state. Here and there e faimily is found, where humanity and religion impel the master, mistress, or children, to the laborious task of private instruction. But, after all, what is the utmost amount of instruction given to slaves? Those who enjoy the most of it are fed with but the crumbs of knowledge which fall from their master’s table-they are clothed with the mere shreds and tatters of learning.” (Pp.

7, 8.)

Page 125 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. 4. The interests of the master prevent the education of the slave. The masters will ordinarily do nothing for the instruction of the slaves beyond what is necessary to make them profitable instruments in their hands. The arts of reading and writing, the elements of education, are ac quirements which can not be allowed to the slave without diminishing his value as a laborer, facilitating his escape from bondage, and periling the life of his master: so that custom, if not the law of the land, commonly deprives him of edu cation. Besides, the acquisition of knowledge requires, on the part of its possessor, both motive and exertion; and the man who is to continue through life in bondage has no adequate motive of interest to induce him to the necessary exertion; for knowledge or skill is not valuable to him, as to one who reaps the benefits of his attainments. Further more, the acquisition of knowledge also requires facilities of books, teachers, and time, which depend on the will of the master; and those who desire to perpetuate slavery will never furnish these facilities. Hence, if slaves are educated it must increase the expense on the part of the master. But the true slavehlolder looks on the slave as his property, and every dollar expended on him hle esteems as lost, unless it contributes to increase his capacity for yielding him valuable service.‘The master will have them taught to wvork, and will ordinarily clothe and feed them, so as to enable them to perform their work to advantage. More than this need not be expected; and when philanthrophy would do more, stern prohibitory statutes, or the stronger force of general custom, prevent the education, not only of the slaves, but of all colored persons. 5. But slavery deprives its victim of the inalienable right of education. The privilege of reading and of acquiring knowledge is a most valuable gift to those who are obliged to devote themselves, for the most part, to manual labor. But law and sterner custom make no provision for the 11* 125

Page 126 view page image

126 DEPRIVATION OF RIGIITS-EDUCATION. instruction of the sla,ve laborer; nay, the severest penalties are incurred by those who even aid in the good work. And then the very ignorance, stupidity, and sensuality, induced by this unjust treatment, are pleaded as reasons why they shoul( be thus (ldegraded forever. 6. The withholding of instruction is directly contrary to the 1ible. The following, texts declare this very clearly: ‘I’lThat tlhe soul be iithlout kinowledge, it is not good,” I’rov. xix,‘2. Our Lord pronounced a woe upon thlc Jewvish teacliers becausc tlhey took away the key of knowledgec. ” Woe uinto you, lawyers! for ye lavc taken away the key of knowleldg,e: ye entered not in yourselves, andti the at were entering in ye hiii(lered,” Luke xi, 5’. And how can those obey the following coiummand of Christ, when they (Ire debarred from reading, the Scriptures for wavnt of the lkniovled,ge of reading: “Searhel the Scriptures?” John v,‘39. According, to the ol0 Testament, all were privileged to acquire kniowl(edg’e without tlany restraint. Naiy, on the contrary, all were encouraged to (cquire knowle(ige, because of the,ire-at ad aintziges to be derived from it. Indeed, every place in Scripture proclins the excellence of truth, and the kinowledge of truth; and constant exertions are Cenjoined in order to atcquire kinowled,ge. And a state of ignorailce is in Scriptutie constantly condemned; and many of the instrumentalities of the Gospel, such as preaching, tecaching’, and the written word, are expressly given and aitlhorit-htiv-ely enjointed, in order to remove the ignorance of mainkind. The inference is therefore plain, that the laws and the customs of the slave-states, either in forbidding or in not p-ovi(idin) and( enjoining that the slaves b(
educated, are contriaLiy to tli(h P)ible. Or, to vary the expression, the IBible is essentially opposed to sla,very. That is, laws are necessary to stupport the system of slavery, \which are directly opposed to the principles of the word of God.

Page 127 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. And slaveholding legislators believe that if these laws should be repealed, the system could not stand. This can not be denied by any one. What a terrible overthrow would a (,oo( system of common schools, and a free press, namong, the slaves, do in the slave states! Slavery could not live two generations under such an influence.

But sl-aveliolders have no real belief that slavery is sanctioned bv the Bible. If they believed so, the best thing they could do would be to teach all their slaves to read the 3Bible. If the relation of master and slave is one recognized in the Bible, then the Bible is the right book to put into the hands of the slaves; and the slave should immediately be taufght to read, that he may read the Bible, which, they say, sancetions slavery.

If the Bible never speaks of slavery as’ieftl, then the best thing that could be done to support slavery would be to teach all the slaves to read it, that slavery may have the sactctioa of the Bible, as some pretend to a,firm that it has. 7. The want of education among the slaves la.s s miost disastrous infliuence on their character. The bad tree of slavery, in this, produces bad fruit. Kinowledg,e is a part of God’s imag,e in mainl; for this image consisted in knowledg(e, rigllteousness, and true holiness.

God gave man intellectual power that it mi,ght be cultivated; and the system which degrades it is not of God. The slave, though living in a land of li,ght, dwells in darkness. “No parent feels the duty of instructing him. No teacher is provided for him, but the driver, who breaks him almost in childhood to the servile tasks vwhichl are to fill up his life. No book is opened to his youthful curiosity. As he advances in years, no new excitements supply the place of teachers. He is not cast on himself-made to depend on his own energies. No striving, prizes in life awaklen his dormant faculties. Fed and clothed by others like a child, directed in every step, doomed for life to a monotonous round of labor, he lives 127

Page 128 view page image

128 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. and dies without spring to his powers, often brutally unconscious of his spiritual nature. Nor is this all. When benevolence would approach him with instruction, it is repelled.

He is not allowed to be taught. The light is jealously barred out. The voice, which would speak to him as a man, is put to silence. He must not even be enabled to read the word of God. His immortal spirit is systematically crushed.” (Channing on Slavery, p. 75.) The following sentiment, by Chancellor Harper, of South Carolina, on slavery, in the Southern Literary Messenger, October, 1838, is not correct: “It is by the existence of slavery, exempting so large a portion of our citizens from the necessity of bodily labor, that we have leisure for intellectual pursuits and the means of attaining a liberal education.” The statistics of literature will contradict this high assumption of the Chancellor. But whatever may be the leisure and attainments of southern slaveholders, the education of poor white persons is not provided for. Hence, their very ignorance renders them the more fit instruments for doing the ill, and guarding the human property of the wealthier class. On the contrary, where slavery does not exist, the people literally partake in the government, and mighty efforts are made in behalf of general education. And the present state of New England is no more than a good beginning in what will yet be done in the free states, both in and out of New Enghlnd. 8. But it may be well to see some of the reasons which slaveholders give for preventing the intellectual improvement of the slaves. We may place foremost in the list the Rev. James Smylie, of the Mississippi presbytery, who wrote, Feb. 15, 1836, a reply to the letter of the Chlilicothe presbytery, dated Nov. 28, 1835. In reply to the resolution of the Chilicothle presbytery, which affirms that a Church member is guilty of a great sin, and ought to be dealt with as for other

Page 129 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. scandalous crimes, “who shall advocate or speak in favor of such lawns as have been, or may yet be enacted, for thle purpose of keeping the slaves in ignoratnce, and preventing themn firom reading the word of God(l,” Arl. Smylie utters the following, sentiments.

After stating that the legislators of Mlississippi and Louisiana never passed laws to foster i(norance of the word of God, but that these states have “laws, accompanied with heavy penal sanctions, prohibiting the teaching of slaves to read, and meeting the religious part of the reflecting community,” he states as follows: “The passa(ge of these laws, hlowever hard their bearing on slaves, is a necessary effect, produced, as milght have been foreseen, from an adequate cause…. The laws preventing slaves from learning to read are a fruitful source of much ignorance and immorality amnong slaves. The printing, publisling, and circulating abolition and emancipating papers in those states, were the cause of the passage of the laws. The ignorance and immorality occasioned by the laws, must leg,itimately be saddled on the laws, as the effect must be saddled on the cause. But the laws themselves are -an cf’ect! Where, then, must they be saddled, with all the accumulated weilght of guilt, but upon thle cause? even upon the back of abolitionists and emancipators? Upon whom, now, will they saddle them leg,itimately? Upon such great and good men as John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Bishop Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clarke, Wilberforce, Sharp, Clarkson, Fox, Johnson, Burke, and a host of as good, if not equally-great men, of latter date.” (P. 63.) “The Legislatures, however, in view of the’WEEPING, AN-D WAILING, AN,D

G,NASIIN-,G OF TEETIIh’ of northern ablolitionists, and in view of the antisciiptural doctrines, which they were publishing and circulating with at zeal worthy of a better cause, have enacted laws, with heavy penal sanctions, for the purpose, not, as basely represented, for 120

Page 130 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGIITS-EDUCATION. scandalOus crimes, “who shall advocate or speak in favor of such laws as have been, or may yet be enacted, for thle purpose of keeping the slaves in ignorance, and preventing them firom reading the word of God(l,” Air. Smylie utters the following, sentiments.

After stating that the legislators of Mlississippi and Louisiana never passed Ilaws to foster ig’norance of the word of God, but that these states have “laws, accompanied with heavy penal sanctions, prohibiting the teaching of slaves to read, and meeting the religious parIt of the reflecting community,” he states as follows: “The pass.ice of these laws, howeveer hard their bearing on slaves, is a necessary effect, produced, as milght have been foreseen, from an adequate cause… The laws preventing’

slaves from learning, to read are a fruitful source of much ignorance and immorality iamong slaves. The printing, publishingr, and circulating abolition and emancipatingc papers in those states, were the cause of the passage of the laws. The i,gnorance and immoralitv occasioned by the laws, must legitimately be saddled on the laws, as the effect must be saddled on the cause. But the laws themselves aire -an eect! Where, then, must they be saddled, with all the accumulated weight of guilt, but upon tlle cause?

even upon the back of abolitionists and emancipators? Upon whom, now, will they saddle them leg,itimately? Utpon such gTreat and good men as John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Bishop Porteus, Patley, Horsley, Scott, Clarike, WAVilberforce, Sharp, Clarksoni, Fox, Johnson, Burke, and a host of as good, if not equally-great men, of later date.” (P. 63.) “The Le,gislatures, however, in view of thle’WEErPING, AND WAILING, AND

GNASIIING OF TEETII’ of northern abolitionists, and in view of the cntiscri])tural doct2rines, which they were publishing and circulating with a zeal worthy of a better cause, have enacted laws, with heavy penal sanctions, for the purpose, not, as bascly represented, for 120

Page 131 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. can rest. Slaveholders know that universal education must eventuate in universal emancipation. Hence their unjust laws, which take away the very key of knowledge. It is true, there is a necessity laid on the master to keep the slave in ignorance, in order to continue him a slave. And what stronger argument can there be against slavery? How horrible must be the system, which, in the opinion of its strongest advocates, demands, as the necessary condition of its existence, that knowledge must be shut out of the minds of those who live under it, that they should be reduced as nearly as possible to the level of brutes or machines, and that the powers of their souls should be crushed! Slavery compels the master to degrade system atically the mind of the slave-to war against human intelligence. Can such a system be supported, or even tolerated, without deep criminality? Is it marvelous that the list of worthies, given by the Rev. Mr. Smylie, should be the opponents of so great a degradation of human nature? 10. It is objected, that almost every-where the laboring classes are doomed to ignorance; or, as Dr.

Fuller has it, “thle laboring population in all countries have but little taste or time for literature.” This is notably untrue of the free states, because the masses have not only a knowledge of reading and writing, but also of much useful knowledge, as history, geography, arithmetic, composition, etc., which is obtained in childhood and youth. And should these have even but little time, as Dr. Fuller states, this little, duly improved, will soon accumulate much useful knowledge. Who will compare with slaves the laborers, mechanics, and farmers of the free states, as to knowledge, without blushing? Indeed, from these same laboring classes of the free states, men of the greatest distinction in Church and state have arisen, to fill all the departments of life with usefulness and dignity.

But Dr. Fuller adds, “But if our slaves were taught to 131 I’ll

Page 132 view page image

132 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. read.” If they were, as was said before, they would soon learn their rights, so that the injustice and wrongs of slavery could not be practiced over them. If the laboring classes of Europe are quoted, as they often are, to show the similarity of condition, in regard to intellectual improvement, the objection will not hold; because, 1. Many, indeed large portions, of the laboring classes of Europe receive the elements of common school education, and many of the most educated men were, in early life, of this class. 2. But it is derogatory to human nature, and truly worthy of slavery, to plead the remains of barbarism in Europe as the model for their imitation. All philanthropists and good men select the good examples after which to copy; but the defenders of slavery select degradation, and the lowest forms of degraded humanity, on which to form, as models, a half, or a large portion of the community in which they live. If there were no other argument, in or out of the Bible, than this, derived as it is from the depraved standard of ignorant and oppressed communities, this alone ought to sink it forever in the judgment of all Christians and philanthropic men; and it does thus sink it. Even Dr. Fuller is unable to deliver slavery friomn the weight of this millstone hung about its neck. He suddenly drops the objection, by waiving it, and passing to another topic. And so must eve-y one else who pleads for the ignorance, and therefore the degradation, of their fellow-creatures. 1 1. Nor do the well-meant attempts recently made,.of communicating oral relig,ious instruction, at all meet the wants of the human mind; because, 1. At best such instructions are very limited in their range. They are confined altogether to religious instruction, leaving the mind uninformed as to all other departments of knowledge. 2.

Such instructions, too, are superficial, as they rarely enter into any discussions beyond the mere elements of religious truth;

Page 133 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-EDUCATION. and these in a very slilght degree, as is manifest from the catechetical text-books prepared to aid the teacher, but never designed to be put into the hands of slaveholders. 3. Besides, the uncultivated minds of slaves are poorly prepared to receive the instruction thus communicated. 4. Add to all this, the few only are reached, while the many are utterly overlooked. Only a few of the slaveholders, where instruction is the most needed, will allow their slaves even this imperfect mode of teaching. Missionaries and others who resort to this good work are watched with jealousy, and may at any time be prevented from prosecuting their good work. Nevertheless, even this oral instruction, if pure Gospel principles are inculcated, will do much good.

Yet, we fear most of the teaching is on one side of the question, whether catechetically communicated, or from the pulpit. The duties of slaves, falsely called servants, are urged with assiduity; while the duties of masters, especially slave-masters, are rarely touched, or in such a manner as to leave the grossest sins unreproved, much less actually corrected. 12

133 L

Page 134 view page image

134 DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. CHAPTER III. DEPRIVATION OF

RIGHTS-RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. 1. ONE of the plainest dictates of the Christian religion is a regard for the well-being of our fellow-creatures.

This is enforced as a duty, both in the Old and New Testaments. All true Christians believe that the knowledge of the precepts and promises of Christianity will promote the happiness of men, both here and hereafter.

Negroes are endowed with reason, have immortal souls, and are accountable to God for the deeds done in the body. It is the inalienable right of every human being to worship God according to his own views of what is true. 2. This right is recognized in the Bible. The authority of God in religion is superior to all other powers. “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard,” Acts iv, 19, 20.

“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than man,” Acts v, 29. And all are required to learn and receive the truth. “And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the commandminents of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?” Deut. x, 12, 13. “Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him,” Deut. xiii, 4. We are also to judye and prove all things-receive the good and reject the bad.

“Prove aill things; hold fast that -wYhicll is good,” 1 Thess. V, 21.

“Beloved, believe

Page 135 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world,” I John iv, 1. All are required to search the Scriptures. “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me,” John v, 39. What we learn we are bound to retain. “Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life,” Prov. iv, 13. Conscience binds men to exercise these religious privi leges. “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” 1 Cor.

x, 29. And it is a heinous sin to prevent or forbid others from obeying, God. “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered,”

Luke xi, 52. 3. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of conscience is the great principle of Protest antism and of liberty. Long and difficult was the struggle in asserting and securing this. It was partly obtained at the Reformation from Popery; but only in part. The Pu ritans contended for this in the times of Elizabeth, James, and Charles I. The Non-conformists and Quakers felt the want of this in the time of Charles II. The Quakers and Baptists contended and suffered for it in New England. To establish this has cost blood and suffering to no ordinary degree. 4. This right is fully established by the principles of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the several states, except for the benefit of the colored race in the slave states.

Both the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states assert this in the most unequivocal manner. To maintain and enjoy the right to worship God, where, when, and how they pleased-the P!

135 W 

Page 136 view page image

136 DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. right to hold what opinions they pleased-the early European settlers of the United States endured all the sacrifices of a perilous voyage, and the hardship of settling a new country. An American citizen, whether at the north or south, prizes this beyond every other privilege. To maintain it he pledges “his life, his property, and his sacred honor.” 5. The slave, in every state where slavery exists, is practically denied this right. He may have it, in part, by concession; but he can never claim it as a right. Mr. Stroud, p. 90, expresses it thus: “The means for moral and religious instruction are not granted to the slave; on the contrary, the efforts of the humane and charitable to supply these wants are discountenanced by law.” Whatever kindness may exist on the part of the master, this great privilege, so far as the law of slavery is concerned, is not secured to the slave. Every thing pertaining to the worship of God is in the hands of the master; and no slaves, according to the laws, can act freely in the worship of God.

The world, in its worst times of oppression, has never seen any thing worse, or that more effectually interferes with the rights of conscience, than the slave laws of the slave states in regard to religion. In the preceding chapter we showed that mental instruction, in general, is withheld from the slave. He can not, therefore, learn the Scriptures, except as a hearer; and yet there are few facilities afforded even for this. No time is secured to the slave by law, nor place provided. When the slave accompanies his master to Church, it is mostly for the convenience of his master. Besides, the rude mind of the slave can not comprehend, to advantage, discourses designed for the more enlarged capacity of the master. By a law of Georgia, white persons are fully protected

Page 137 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. in the exercise of religious worship; yet the same law con eludes in these words: “No congregation or company of negroes shall, under any pretense of divine worship, assem ble themselves contrary to the act regulating patrols.” And, according to the patrol law, “every slave which shall be found and taken at such meeting as aforesaid, shall and may, by order of such justice, immediately be corrected without trial, by receiving on the bare back twentyfive stripes with a whip, switch, or cow-skin.” (Stroud, p. 92; Prince’s Digest, 447.) In Southl Carolina the restraints on the religious privileges of the slaves are stringent enough. (Stroud, p. 93.) In Virginia, “all meetings, etc., of slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes, mixing, etc., with such slaves at any meetinghouse, etc., or any other place, etc., in the night, under any pretext whatsoever, are declared to be unlawful assemblies, and the civil power may disperse the same and inflict corporeal punishment on the offenders.” (Stroud, p. 94.) Slaves may, however, attend at church, on any day of public worship. Mississippi has adopted the law of Virginia, with a proviso that the master or overseer of a slave may, in writing, grant him permission to attend a place of religious worship, at which the minister may be white, and regularly ordained or licensed; or, at least, two discreet and reputable white persons, appointed by some regular Church, or religious society, shall attend. (Miss. Rev. Code, 390.) Can any man believe that it was the design of God and agreeable to the principles of holy Scripture, that such a system should be perpetuated for the good of society? Can any man now believe that another might dictate to him how, when, where, he should worship God, what he should believe, and all other matters concerning religion? Southern men would be the first to take up arms, if any man 12* 137 rp  II

Page 138 view page image

138 DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. would impose on them such a restriction in regard to religion as they, by their laws, impose on the slaves and colored people. But let us examine this matter more narrowly.

We maintain that slavery obstructs the means of grace, and tends to prevent the salvation of sinners. 6. Slavery in a great measure deprives its subjects of religious instruction and the privileges of the Gospel.

These may be ranged under the following heads: free access to the Scripture, a Gospel ministry, various other means of grace, etc. (1.) Either the laws or usages of the slave states prevent the slaves from free access to the Scriptures. We have seen that it is a necessary appendage of slavery to restrain the slaves from learning. But to learn to read the word of God is necessary in order to read it; and reading it is an important means of knowing the wvill of God, revealed to mankind for their salvation. Therefore, to restrain any from the knowledge of God’s written word, is a high insult to God, who gave us his revelation, that we might read it and acquire the knowledge of the way of salvation. Again: to prevent any of mailnkind firom reading the word of God is to hinder their salvation, because it prevents the means leading to the end. Hence, it is sacrificing the sinner’s salvation to the slavehol(ler’s worldly gain.

And, although no law may justly prohibit the reading of the Bible, yet law or custom does worse, by preventing the slave from reading, so that he can neither read the Bible nor any other book. The ignorance of the slave prevents him from reading the Bible and understanding its contents. The Bible may be before him; but it is to him a sealed book. “The light shinethli in darkness, but the darkness comprehlendeth it not.” (2.) The slaves are not effectually provided with the advantages of the ministry.

They are, it is true, often

Page 139 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. permitted, and even encouraged, to attend Church, with their masters. But the instructions communicated on such occasions are, for the most part, above their capacities. They listen as to prophecies in an unknown tongue; and the preachers of their own color are mostly ill qualified to instruct them. If a slave does possess gifts and grace to preach, and the Church should license or ordain him, he is prevented by tyrannical power from going forth to preach the Gospel to every creature. If the Church would call the slave preacher from his subjection to his master to fill his office, the Church would be treated as a dangerous enemy, and if persisted in, the actors in the Church would be treated with the highest severity. In most of the slave states the laws prevent any preachers of the Gospel from collecting the colored people into congregations, for the purpose of hearing the Gospel preached. And the colored people would be cruelly tortured did they attend such ministrations. Any privileges of hearing the Gospel must be given by the goodwill of the master. And in no slave state can colored preachers be pastors of flocks. The office of colored preachers must be that of the lowest deaconship of the word. (3.) Social means of grace are but limitedly used by the slaves. Occasionally a white family is found where slaves are taught to worship with them in their family prayers. But with most masters who attempt this, it is an abortive undertaking. The duties of the slaves, or their natural aversion to devotion, are barriers in the way. In their own cottages, the slaves rarely attend family devotions, and still more rarely do they, or can they, read the Bible. Yet God has not left himself without witnesses in this matter, whose testimony will, at the time appointed, condemn the conduct of many masters. Dr. Fuller argues, or rather evades the real issue, most 139

Page 140 view page image

140 DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. sophistically, on this point. In his letters, p. 140, he says: “lNow, suppose a slave to have the word of God, and to employ all the means of grace, why should his moral improvement be impossible because hlie labors for my benefit?” Well, suppose he has the word of God-if he can not read it what good can it do him? And as to his “enjoying all the means of grace,” this is what is rarely the case; and when lie does enjoy these means, they are merely from the will of his master; and many masters allow of no such privileges.

Indeed, the means of grace allowed by masters are not allowed from the system of slavery, but accrue to the slave in spite of the system, and from a very different source; namely, the goodwill of the master, and the force of antislavery principles counteracting the tendency of the system.

Again: Dr. Fuller, p. 157, says “that duty is not the emancipation, but the instruction, moral and intellectual, of the slave; just as in a despotism, the duty is, not granting a free constitution, but improving the subjects.” But the system of slavery in South Carolina, Mr. Fuller’s own state, makes mental improvement in the slave a crime, both for the slave himself and the person who aids the slave in acquiring it. Hence, the moral and intellectual instruction of the slav must be derived from another source than the slave system But Mr. Fuller, all along in his letters, considers slavery as under the control of pious and intelligent masters; without duly referring to its proper character as established by law, and practiced under law, which is the correct idea of slavery, and not the mitigated form of it as counteracted by the acts of benevolent masters. 7. The restraint of slavery on the religious privileges of slaves is an open violation of the rights of conscience. (1.) This restraint violates the righlts of conscience of the pious Christian whose duty it is to instruct the slaves in the principles of religion, and lead him to the experience of the privileges of Christianity. All Christians who enjoy the If -(

Page 141 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. means of knowledge, are in duty bound, according to their stations and circumstances, to teach the ignorant the word of God. But the laws of slave states by fines and penalties prevent the free citizens from teaching the slaves to read the w-ord of God, even though they found themselves bound by the word of God and their own consciences to instruct them. If private Christians attempt to teach the slaves on tile Lord’s day, they are violently prevented by bands of )patrollers, who have authority to disperse the blacks if more than four or five are found together, except they are imme diattely under the eyes of masters or overseers. In some slavne states the attempt would expose the teachers to fines and imprisonment. (2.) The restraint of slavery in the matter of religion is a violation of the rights of conscience of the slave. All mankind who have access to the Scriptures are bound to search them. This obligation is stringent upon all men. (John v, 39; 2 Tim. iii, 16.) But it is impossible to search the Scriptures, or to enjoy all those spiritual advantages, without learning to read. Suppose a slave feels it his conscientious duty to learn to read the word of God, as many do-the attempt would be repelled by force, and if persisted in would expose him to torture. If a slave possess gifts to preach the Gospel, the restraint of slavery completely controls this. (3.) There are circumstances of peculiar malignity attending( the restraints of conscience imposed by slavery. 1. Popish persecutors had the glory of God for their end, and thought they were doing God service in their persecutions. The end in view by slavelholders, in restraining the religious privileges of the slaves, is their own worldly advantage; because they know that slavery can not be long sustained without imperiously restraining the slaves from the means of knowledge. 2. Yet the occasion of persecution by the popish party was, in the main, the same withl that under the J’-ll;! 141 .0

Page 142 view page image

142 DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. dominion of slavery. The Bible seems to be the occasion for both, in restraining the conscience. The cause of restraint in the slave states are the attempts made by conscientious persons to teach the blacks to read the Bible, and attempts by the blacks themselves to learn to read, that they might use the Scriptures; but the slaveholders, who are supported by law, imperiously withhold them from the use of the Scriptures, by restraining them from all means of learning to read. It amounts to the same in the end, whether the Bible is by force withheld from the people, or the people by force withheld from the Bible. And here we may quote the faithful testimony of the synod of Kentucky on this point. They say: “Still fur. ther, the deprivation of personal liberty is so complete, that it destroys the rights of conscience. Our system, as established by law, arms the master with power to prevent his slave even from worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience. The owner of human beings among us may legally restrain them from assembling to hear the instructions of divine truth, or even from ever uniting their hearts and voices in social prayer and praise to Him who created them. God alone is Lord over the conscience.

Yet our system, defrauding alike our Creator and our slaves, confers upon men this prerogative of Deity. Argument is unnecessary, to show the guilt and madness of such a system; and do we not participate in its criminality, if we uphold it?” 8. The interference of slavery with the religious privileges of Christians-whether in partaking of its advantages thelnselves, er of inculcating it among those who are ignorant of it-is one of the most heinous sins that depraved human nature can commit. It is an insult to God, the Father, who has given his revelation to instruct man. It is a disparagement to Jesus Christ, who died to redeem man. It is doing despite to the Holy Ghost, by whose agency man is renewed, enlightened, and sanctified. It is at variance with I, q I I

Page 143 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. the Bible, because it takes away the key to the Bible, even when the Bible itself is not prohibited. It is a frustration to the GospeI ministry, in that it prevents entirely its preaching, or restrains it into a comparatively-inefficient instrumentality. It throws serious obstacles in the way of Church discipline, and hems in all the operations of the Church of God. We will give the testimony of the synod of Kentucky on this point, in their address in 1835: “But while the system of slavery continues among us, these means can never be efficiently and fully employed for the conversion of the degraded sons of Africa. Yet’ God lath made them of one blood’ with ourselves; hath pro vided for them the same redemption; hath in his providence cast souls upon our care; and hath clearly intimated to us the doom of him who seetli his brother have need and shutteth his bowels of compassion fi’om him. If by our example, our silence, or our sloth, we perpetuate a system vlwhich paralyzes our hands when wve attempt to convey to them the bread of life, and which inevitably consigns the great mass of them to unending perdition, can we be guiltless in the sight of Him who hath made us stewards of his grace?” 9. The interference with the rights of conscience-especially the total want of provision for the religious improvement of the slaves-is one of the worst features of the system.

Already we have said a few words on the subject of oral instruction, but more especially in reference to its bearing on intellectual culture. There is nothing of which slaveholders are more afraid, than sound religious instruction. Hence they throw impediments in the way of pure Gospel instruction. MAany in the south are now attempting to preach the Gospel to slaves-to establish schools daily or weekly-to conduct the labor and discipline of the plantation on Gospel principles. Yet none of the religious teachers 143 711

Page 144 view page image

144 DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. are allowed to employ any thiing except oral instruction. There can be no religious assemblies except under the eye of the master, and no instruction except with his express approbation. 10. And even when religion itself is ardently supported by slaveholders, the system of slavery so vitiates religious endeavors as to prejudice the minds of slaves against all true religion. A runaway slave, in 1841, assigned the following as the reason why he refused to commune with the Church of which he was a member, at the south. “The Church,” said he, “had silver furniture for the administration of the Lord’s supper, to procure which they sold my brother! and I could not bear the feelings it produced, to go forward and receive the sacrament from the vessels which were the purchase of my brother’s blood.” “I have lived eight years in a slave state, (Va.,) and received my theological education at the Union Theological Seminary near Hampden Sidney College. Those who know any thing about slavery know the worst kind is jobbing slavery-that is, the hiuing out of slaves from year to year, while the master is not present to protect them. It is the interest of the one who hires them to get the worth of his money out of them; and the loss is the master’s if thev die.

What shocked me more than any thing else, was the Church engaged in this jobbing of slaves. The college Church, which I attended, and which was attended by all the students of Hampden Sidney College, and Union Theological Seminary, held slaves enough to pay their pastor, Mr. Stanton, $1,000 a year, of which the Church members did not pay a cent. So I understood it. The slaves, who had been left to the Church by some pious mother in Israel, had increased so as to be a large and still increasing fund. These were hired out on Christmas day of each year-the day on which they celebrate thle birth of our blessed Savior-to the

Page 145 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGES. highest bidder. These worked hard the whole year to pay the pastor his $1,000 a year; and it was left to the caprice of their employers whether they ever heard one sermon, for which they toiled hard the whole year to procure. This was the church in which the professors of the seminary and of the college often officiated. Since the abolitionists have made so much noise about the connection of the Church with slavery, the Rev. Elisha Balenter informed me the Church had sold this property and put the money in other stock. There were four Churches near the college Church that were in the same situation with this, when I was in that country, that supported the pastor, in whole or in part, in the same way; namely, Cumberland Church, John Kirkpatrick pastor; Briny Church, William Plummer pastor, (since Dr. P., of Richmond;) Buffalo Church, Mr. Cochran pastor; Pisgah Church, near the peaks of Otter, J. Mitchell pastor.” (Rev. J. Cable, of Ia., May 20, 1846, in a letter to the Mercer Luminary.) 13 145 a

Page 146 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. CHAPTER IV. DEPRIVATION OF

RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. 1. As slaves are the property of others, and therefore things, and as they themselves can own no property, and especially because they can make no contracts, they can not contract matrimony. The association which takes place among slaves, though sometimes called marriage, is not properly marriage, but contubernium-a relation which has no sanctity, and to which no civil rights are attached. The laws of the southern states do not recognize marriage among the slaves, and of course do not enforce any of its duties. Indeed, slavery will not admit of any legal recognition of the marriage rite; for the master’s absolute right of property in the slaves must frustrate all regulations on the subject. In his disposal of them, were the laws of marriage in force, he would be no longer at liberty to consult merely his own interest. He could no longer separate the wife and husband, to suit the convenience and interest of the purchaser. And as the wife and husband do not always belong to the same owner, and are not often wanted by the same purchaser, the duties of marriage, if enforced by law, would frequently conflict with the interests of the master. Hence, all the marriage contracts that could ever be allowed to slaves would be “voidable” at the master’s pleasure; and are constantly thus voided by slavery. Both slaves and the system of slavery consider the matrimonial engagement.-as a thing not binding; and the practice is in accordance with the theory. The slaves, to use their own phraseology, “take up with each other,” and live together, as long as suits their own inclinations and convenience. The following is the law opinion of Mr. Dulaney, Attorney-General of Maryland: “A slave has never maintained an action against the violation of his bed. A slave 146 I !ll I

Page 147 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. is not admonished for incontinence, or punished for fornica tion or adultery-never prosecuted for bigamy, or petty treason for killing a husband being a slave, any more than admitted to an appeal for murder.” (See Stroud, p. 61.) 2. Slavery annihilates the right of marriage. The master has power to prevent the manriage of his slaves, or separate them after marriage. This results from the right of property in man; for the right to buy a thing implies a right to sell it again. And as a man in pur chasing one slave is under no obligation of purchasing another, though it be the wife or child of the former, so it is in regard to the sale. As in procuring slaves origin ally whether by conquests in war, by kidnapping, by pur chase, or by seizing innocent children, as now in the United States-no regard was paid to any of the relations of life, so no regard is had to these relations or their duties in the tenure by which slaves are now held. The slave laws do not recognize the relation of husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister. There are thousands of instances in which conscientious masters would not separate husband and wife, parents and children; but this can not be taken into the account in estimating the character of the system of slavery. If the master is in debt, the law, by its officers, separates man and wife, parents and children. If the owner of slaves dies, his children may separate the marriage contract; or the sheriff may do it by the strong arm of law, without asking the leave of heirs. The power of the master over the slaves sets aside the duties of marriage as enjoined in the holy Scriptures, although the husband and wife are not actually separated. The husband is declared to be the “head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church,” (Eph. v, 23; 1 Cor. xi, 3,) and as such, has a right to rule in his family. The wife is commanded to be subject to her husband, to love 147 4b; I

Page 148 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHIITS-MARRIAGE. him, to cherish him. “As the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing,” Eph. v, 24 and 33; Titus ii, 4, 5; 1 Peter iii, 1. It is the master, not the husband, that has the supreme power over the wife of the slave. The master, too, has the power of enforcing obedience by punishments, in spite of the will of the husband. The power of the master extends, too, to her manner of employing her time, to her domestic arrangements, to her hours of labor and rest, to her food and raiment, etc. Here, too, the power of the master may not be exercised. He may not interfere with the relative duties of marriage; but this is not to be traced to any mercy in the institution of slavery; for it has none.

Nothing prevents the master from setting aside the whole law of God on the subject of matrimony. And the benevolence of humane masters, which prompts them to act toward slaves, not according to the essential laws of the system, but according to Scripture precepts, is one of the strongest protests against slavery in the world. Wherever Christian feeling and priliciples are at work, they rise up in array against the immorality and sin of parting husband and wife, or of obstructing the duties of the marriage relation. The same feeling and principles, properly carried out, would revolt-they do revolt-they will continue to revolt-against the whole system of slavery; so that, finally, it will be rooted out of the earth.

The opposition to the branches will, in time, be turned against the stem and roots, so as to extirpate this high injustice from the face of the earth; that is, to destroy its branches, cut down the trunk, and then root out every vital root belonging to it, so that it will never germinate again. So it will be, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.” jir.

Rice, in answer to Mr. Blanchard’s declaration, that 148 o)I

Page 149 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHIITS-MARRIAGE. slaves can not contract marriage, and that their children are illegitimate, uses the following language: “The mar riag,e of slaves is as valid in the view of God’s law as that of their masters. Marriage is a Bible institution. Will the gentleman point us to the portion of Scripture which makes recognition of marriage by the civil law necessary to its validity?” (Blanchard and Rice’s Discussion on Slavery, p. 35.) Again: he says, p. 55, “Point me to the part of Scripture which makes recognition of marriage by the civil law essential to its validity.” Again: p. 75, “The marriage of slaves is, in God’s law, as valid as that of their owners; and it is as truly a violation of that law to separate the former as the latter.” All this, on the whole, is true enough; but it evades the force of the argument. Allowing, as we readily do, that marriage needs not mere civil regulations to make it valid, the difficulty is not removed; for the civil laws of slavery, and the practice under them, completely annul marriage in three several ways: 1. By preventing, authoritatively, the slaves from entering into the marriage relation; 2. By interfering with the discharge of its duties, after entering on it; and, 3. By separating man atnd wife at the will of the master. All this is done. And Mr. Rice evades the argument of his opponent, on this point, as he constantly does, in the place of meeting him fairly; so that he is more the defender and apologist for slavery than any thing else. 3. Slavery tends to licentiousness, both among the slaves and their masters. (1.) The general concubinage among the slaves produces revolting licentiousness. On this the synod of Kentucky say: “We are assured, by the most unquestionable testimony, that their [the slaves]

licentiousness is the necessary result of our system, which, destroying the force of the marriage rite, and thus, in a measure, degrading all the 13* 149

Page 150 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. connection between the sexes into mere concubinage, solicits wandering desire, and leads to extensive profligacy.

Our familiarity with this consequence of slavery, prevents us from regarding it with that horror which it would, under other circumstances, inspire. Without marriage we would herd together like brutes, but we could no longer live together like human beings. There would be no families, no strong ties of kindred, no domestic endearments, softening the manners and curbing the passions. Selfish, sensual, and unrestrained man, would exercise his reason only to minister to the more groveling propensities of his nature. Any set of men will approximate to this condition, just in proportion to their approximation to the practical abolition of matrimonial restraints. And certainly, never, in any civilized country, has respect for these restraints been more nearly obliterated, than it has been among our blacks. Thus, the working of our system of slavery diffuses a moral pestilence among its subjects, tending to wither and blight every thing that is naturally beautiful and good in the character of man. Can this system be tolerated without sin?” This is the testimony of eye and ear witnesses, whose statements can not be called in question. Mr.

Seabrook, of South Carolina, in 1834, said, “In general, the intercourse between servants is as unrestrained as the most unbounded ambition could desire. The daily business of the plantation having been finished, the power of the master practically ceases. He knows not, and apparently cares not, in what way the liours of the night are passed by his people.” (See his Essay, Charleston, 1834; and Quarterlv Antislavery Review for 1836, p.

127.) (2.) The licentiousness of the whites is a result flowing from the abrogation or frustration of marriage among the slaves. “A slave country,”

says Channing, “reeks with licentiousness. It is tainted with a deadlier pestilence than the plague. To hold females in slavery is necessarily fatal I il) 0 io,

Page 151 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGIITS-MARRIAGE. to the purity of a people. That females, entirely under the control of masters, should be used to minister to other passions than the love of gain, is certain. Hence, the reins are given to youthful licentiousness; and early licen tiousness is fruitful of crime in mature life. The frequency of these abominations in slave countries, shows that it is a necessary consequence of slavery. Some exceptions of domestic fidelity may be found; but these are few, by the confession of residents on the spot. Every man who resides on his plantation may have his harem, and has every induce ment of custom and of pecuniary gain to tempt him to the common practice.” (3.) Many masters have children and grandchildren born in slavery. Many, perhaps most of these, are well treated during the lifetime of their parents; but, at their death, they are mostly left in bondage. Some parents place their own children under the whip of the overseer. Others sell them into perpetual bondage. Some have for their slaves their own brothers and sisters. Such are the evils growing out of slavery, and incorporated into its very being. The quadroons of New Orleans and other southern locations, are brought up by their mothers to be what they are-the mistresses of white gentlemen. Some of the boys are sent abroad, others are placed on farms, and others are sold into slavery.

The girls are highly educated in externals. Every young man early selects one. Some live with them through life; while others marry white wives, and then either disband their connection with the quadroons or continue it, as they see fit. Handsome mulattoes are sold at enormous prices in the southern market, for the accursed purposes to which the New Orleans quadroons are so shamefully subjected. Slatveholding proves a snare to masters and their sons, living in idleness, either by flattery or force to make undue approaches to the female slaves The offspring, which is a 151

Page 152 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGIITS-MARRIAGE. mixed blood, become a source of jealousy to the lawful wife, and of shame and vexation to the legitimate children.

The frequency of these abominable practices, in every slave neighborhood, shows that it is a necessary consequence of slavery. The sale of any children, whether one’s own children or the children of others, possesses the most shocking traits of depravity and consummate wickedness. All children born of female slaves, are devoted by the slave laws to perpetual slavery. On this account fathers sell their own children, or leave them in perpetual bondage. For a man to sell the children of another, is, in some respects, worse than to sell his own. Yet both have circumstances of horror peculiar to each. To sell the children of another appears more satanic, because in that case the seller has no moral right of property in the child that he violently wrests from the parents. In the latter case, the father has a certain right of property to his own child, at least till it arrives at the age of twenty-one. Therefore, in the case of at man’s selling his own children for slaves, he acts the more brutish part; but he who sells the children of another, acts the more diabolical part. The brutish custom of parents selling their own children and grandchildren; or, what is worse, leaving them to be inherited by their brothers and sisters, or their uncles and aunts, in the estimation of many has proved a barrier to emancipation. The general connection of white masters with their female slaves, produced a mulatto race whose numbers would soon be dangerous, if the afftections of their white parents were permitted to render them free. The liberty of emancipating them was, therefore, abolished, while the liberty to sell them remained. Yet these planters, who s,ell.itlieir own offspring to fill their purses, and who have sl‘4
offspring for the sake of filling their purses, raise the clry of amalgamation against the abolitionists, without just 152 ..,*.Fl

Page 153 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. cause. But it is among the slaveholders that this abomina ble mixture is constantly encouraged, and made a matter of gain, too. 4. The wicked practice of slave-growing, if not a first fruit of slavery, is at least a certain second crop, and now is to be ranked among its annual principal productions. We have previously given as much on this point as to pre sent its existence and true character. Now we mention it in its proper place, as a legitimate part of American slavery, and connected with the annulment of marriage. We will here, on this point, barely quote the remarks of two writers, a gentleman and lady. These will speak to both sexes, in such terms as can not offend delicate ears, although they may appall the hearts of all except the guilty dealers in human stock. Dr. William E. Channing, in his book on slavery, p. 80, says: “We hear of some of the southern states enriching themselves by breeding slaves for sale. Of all the licensed occupations of society, this is the most detestable. What! grow men like cattle! Rear human families, like herds of swine, and then scatter them to the four winds, for gain! Among the imprecations uttered by man on man, is there one more fearful, more ominous, than the sighing mother’s, bereft of her child by unfeeling cupidity? If blood cry to God, surely that sigh will be heard in heaven.”

Miss Martineau, in her Views of Slavery and Emancipation, New York, 1837, p. 9., employs the following language on this inhuman practice: “There is no occasion to explain the management of the female slaves on estates where the object is to rear as many as possible, like stock, for the southern market; nor to point out the boundless licentiousness by the practice-a practice which wrung from the wife of a planter, in the bitterness of her heart, the declaration that a planter’s wife was only’the chief slave of the harem.’ Mr. Madison avowed that the licentiousness 153 I.;L

Page 154 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-MARRIAGE. of the Virginia plantations stopped just short of destruction; and that it was understood that the female slaves were to become mothers at fifteen.” 5. A monstrous illegal amalgamation of the most revolting character, is a consequence of the annulment of marriage among the slaves. More than half of the slaves, it is calculated, share the blood and color of the whites. And almost all these are illegitimate-born out of wedlock. In most parts of the slave states the licentiousness of the white males is very general, most of them living in forbidden intimacy with the female slaves. Great solicitude is often manifested that the breeding wenches, as they call them, should be the mothers of mulatto children, as the nearer the young slaves approach to white the higher will their price be, especially if they are females. As much solicitude is felt on this point, as is felt respecting breeding animals; namely, to increase the value of the marketable slave stock. Nay, some affirm that rewards are sometimes given to white males, who will consent to be the fathers of the mulattoes. The colored women are compelled to submit to this more than brutish treatment without murmuring, and are barbarously punished if they resent it. And yet southern slavehlolders cry out against amalgamation by marriage, or against amalgamation in any form; while at the same time they are practically engaged in the most shameful, unnatucral, and wicked amalgamation that ever debased human nature since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of le,gal amalgamation they have the utm6st horror; in illegal, compulsory amalgamation they seem to glory. Indeed, the mixture of color is rapidly increasing in the slave states by means of illicit connections, much more than by lawful marriag,e, if they were all free. For if they were free, they would improve by religious and moral instruction, which would prevent irregular practices. Not only so, if 154 k

Page 155 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGIITS-MARRIAGE. free, they would be delivered from the power of their mas ters, who now compel the female slaves to become their prostitutes when they please. The facts in the case are plainly these. In the free states there is very little mixture of color. The colored people principally marry among themselves. And in proportion as marriage obtains, these mixtures decrease. It is, therefore, a shameless hypocrisy for slaveholders and their defenders to cry out against amalgamation, when this is a thing that either wholly or principally concerns themselves. And more especially is it shameful, because all the colored people, both among the slaves and free peo ple of color, are nearly akin to the slaveholders; they are their bone and their flesh. The greatest families in the south have the larger number of their own blood relations among the colored people. There are to be found their brothers and sisters, their children and grandchildren, their uncles and aunts, their cousins, back through many grades. Their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, great great grandfathers, etc., had their relatives, too, among the colored people.

Many of all the great southern families, then, are the blood relatives of the colored people. It is, therefore, a burning slihame, to say nothing of the sin, for them to act toward their bone and their flesh as they continually do. 6. This element of slavery, whereof we are now treating, degrades woman inl the most shameful manner. A woman, under the control of slavery, her purity and honor in the hands of her master, exposed to the whip, liable to be sold at any time, can not be loved and honored as a woman should be. So it is in all slave countries. Woman is degraded, just as in heathen countries. The sacred names of mother and wife, in their pure and dignified imports, will not apply to slave women. The public advertisements, under the sanction of law, to be met with in all southern papers, are among the mos’ 155

Page 156 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS MARRIAGE. disgraceful, wicked, barbarous, and heathen customs that can be found on the face of the earth. Here are a few specimens of the expressions: “Twenty dollars reward.-Ran away from the subscriber, a negro woman and two children; the woman is tall and black; and a few days before she went off I burned her with a hot iron on the left side of her face; I tried to make the letter M; and she kept a cloth over her head and face, and a fly bonnet on her head, so as to cover the burn. Her children are both boys; the eldest is in his seventh year; he is a mulatto, and has blue eyes; the youngest is black, and is in his fifth year.” Another reads: “Mary has a small scar over her eye; a good many teeth missing; the letter A is branded on her forehead.” These are mere specimens of the thousands of such advertisements which are constantly issued. So the degradation of woman has progressed. It began in particular instances, but it has progressed to become a system, and is now incorporated as part and parcel of American slavery. Take the following as an example, from the Brunswick (Georgia) Advocate: “Wanted to hire.-The undersigned wish to hire one thousand negroes to work on the Brunswick canal, of whom one-third may be women. Sixteen dollars per month will be paid for steady, prime men, and $13 for women. F. & A. PRATT, P. M.

NIGHTINGALE. “Brunswick, Jan. 25, 1839.” 7. The Bible is in direct opposition to this feature of slavery. “Marriage is honorable in all;”

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be one flesh;” ” What God hath joined together let no-‘n put asunder.” A man may leavm father an’d mother, who have a better right to him ,. ~t4~ 156 I ,i. -

Page 157 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIG IITS-MARRIAGE. than any other can have, and cleave to his wife; but he can not leave his master and cleave to his wife. The institution of marriage allows parents no right to hold their own chil dren beyond mature age; and, of course, they can have no right to sell them to others beyond that period. Hence, the Bible is against slavery.

Moreover, all the denunciations in Scripture leveled against adultery, fornication, and the like, will apply to the violation of the marriage covenant authorized and protected by the laws of slavery, and very generally practiced in slave states. 8. And here it is just to mention, that many slaveholders ]iold all these things in as great abhorrence as any others do. This proves the very thing for which we contend-the sinfulness of the slave svstem. Wherever there is an enli(ghted judgment and a pure conscience, we find the most decided condemnation of these violations of the marriage covenant. And when some slaveholders say they condemn all these things, and they are wrong, we believe them; and this only shows that conscience is on our side of the question, and against the whole system. And the crimes against marriage, which we charge on slavery, are not abuses of the system, but its legitimate operation. Its leading element, “the child follows the condition of the mother,” because the mother is property, lies at the foundation of this sinful system of slavery. 9. As examples of incests and the absence of parental natural affection, necessarily flowing from slavery, take the following: Some forty years ago, a gentleman from old Virginia settled near Lexington, K
entucky. He soon found his need o f help to cultivate h is farm, and proceeded to eastern Virginia to purchase slaves. On inquiring from a slavebree der the price and qualities of’his boys, he was directed t o visit the ne gro quarters in reference t6 the age and quali 14 157

Page 158 view page image

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-MARRI AGE. ties of two young men who seemed fitted for his purpose. On asking their mother who their father was, he received the following answer: “My master is the father of this one, and my master’s son is the father of the other.” The gentleman returned to the owner of the slaves, and informed him there was no need of a hell unless he would be sent there. The Kentucky gentleman determined from that moment that he would never own a slave. Accordingly, he made no purchase, returned home, resolved he would never raise a family in a slave state, sold his possessions in Kentucky, removed to Ohio, and his descendants are now among the most influential, wealthy, and religious families in the state of Ohio. A quadroon and his wife, by the name of Harris, now reside in Springrfield, Ohio, and their four children. The man paid $1,400 to his own father for his wife and three children, born in slavery. Thus the father exacted from his own son the sum of $1,400, for his own son’s wife and his own three grandchildren. And all this according to the legitimate laws and the true spirit of the slave system. 158

Page 159 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. CHAPTER V DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS-CIVIL

DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY IN VOLVING INJUSTICE. SLAVERY deprives men of many civil rights, thus involv ing great injustice, and preparing the way for the infliction of many and great injuries or wrongs. The most weighty of these are embraced in the following list: 1. A slave can not be a witness against a white person, either in a civil or criminal case. 2. A slave can not be party to a civil suit. 3. A slave can not be a party before a judicial tribunal, in any species of action, against his master, no matter how atrocious may have been the injury which he has received from him. 4.

Submission is required of the slave, not to the will of the master only, but to the will of all other white persons. 5. A third person may injure the slave; or slaves being objects of property, if injured by third persons, their owners may bring suit and recover damages for the injury.

f6. Slaves can make no contracts. 7. Slaves can not redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such change necessary for their personal safety. 8. The laws of the states prohibiting emancipation are cruel to the slave, interfere with the rights of conscience of those well-disposed masters who desire to give freedom to their slaves, and encourage and exculpate the wicked in their sins of oppression. 9. Laws of the United States in regard to slavery are unjust, cruel, inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, at variance with the principles of liberty, and contrary to holy Scripture.

159 I&,  T’

Page 160 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. In this chapter we will endeavor to show the great injustice done to the slaves by these enactments; and that they prepare the way for the infliction of many injuries or wvrongs; and that this is sinful in the silght of God, and condemned by holy Scripture. 1. A slave can not be a witness against a white person, either in a civil or criminal case. “It may be laid down as a principle, that an African can not be a witness in a case where the parties are white persons. In many of the states legislative provision is made upon the subject. But the rule does not extend to cases where the parties are negroes or slaves. A slave may be a witness against a slave, and even against a free person of color in some cases. The principle of exclusion is grounded on the degraded state of the slave, and the interest which he may have to conceal or deny the truth. This rule prevails in all countries where slavery is tolerated.

It may be stated as a principle, that in all countries where slavery exists, and where the rules of the civil law have been adopted-and they have been in the Spanish, Portuguese, and British West Indies, and in the several states of the United States, where it is permitted-a slave can not be a witness for or against a white person in a civil or criminal case.

This principle has been adopted in all the states, even where no enactments are to be found declaring them incompetent witnesses. It may be termed the common Iaw or custom, on account of the universality of its operation.” (Wheeler, pp. 193-197; Stroud, p. 56.) (1.) The law excluding the testimony of slaves extends also to all colored persons, whatever may be the shade of their complexion, whether bond or free. In a few of the slaveholding states the rule derives its authority from cus tom; in others, the legislatures have sanctioned it by express enactment. In Virginia the act reads, “Any negro ol mnulatto, bond or free, shall be a good witness in pleas of 160 ~O .1

Page 161 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. the commonwealth for or against negroes or mulattoes, bond or free, or in civil pleas where free negroes or mulattoes shall alone be parties; and in no other cases whatever.” A similar law exists in Missouri, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee. And in those states where there are no laws, custom has all the authority of law. (2.) The effects of this disability on the colored people are most injurious. While this exclusion of the evidence of colored persons prevails, it is of little use to enact laws against kidnapping. The colored person, though free, can not be a witness against the man who steals him or his children. But change the law, and kidnapping would be of easy detection. Thousands of free colored persons have been enslaved by the action of this law or custom, against the testimony of colored persons. This law places the slave, who, in some states, is seldom within the view of more than one white person at a time, entirely at the mercy of this individual. And this white individual may, with impunity, if no other white person be present, torture, maim, or murder the slave in the midst of any number of mulattoes. This is the cause of the greatest evils of slavery. The master or his overseer, if disposed to commit illegal violence on the slave, may easily remove him or her to some place where there is no competent witness. (3.) Almnost all protecting laws are a nullity, in consequence of rejecting the testimony of slaves or colored persons. The most impartial slaveholders acknowledge this. Indeed, it can readily be collected from their very laws. Mr. Dewry Atley, Chief Justice of the island of St. Vincent, gives the following answer to Parliamentary inquiries proposed to him, in 1791: “The only instances in which their [slaves] persons appear to be protected by the letter 14* 161

Page 162 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. of the law are in cases of murder, dismemberment, and mutilation; and in these cases, as the evidence of slaves is never admitted against a white man, the difficulty of establishing the facts is so great that white men are, in a manner, put beyond the reach of the law.” (See Stroud, p. 68.) Sir William Young, Governor of Tobago, an advocate for slavery, in 1811, expresses himself in this manner: “I think the slaves have no protection by law. In this, and I doubt not in every other island, there are laws for the protection of slaves, and good ones; but circumstances in the administration of whatever law render it a dead letter. When the intervention of the law is most required, it will have the least effect; as in cases where a vindictive and cruel master has the disposition to commit the most atrocious cruelties, even to murder his slave, no free person being present to witness the act. Humane laws for the protection of slaves are all rendered nugatory by the conditions of evidence required in their administration.”

SIr. Stevens, in his history of West India slavery, has collected testimony, showing, that all laws made for the protection of slaves are inefficient, in consequence of the rejection of the testimony of slaves.

The negro act of South Carolina contains the following preamble to one of its sections: “f IVIereas, by reason of the extent and distance of plantations in this province, the inhabitants are far removed from each other, and many cruelties may be committed on slaves, because no white person may be present to give evidence of the same:” (Stroud, p. 68.) The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in their decision, in the case of Crawford vs.

Cherry, where the defendant was sued for the value of a slave whom he had shot and killed, (MIartin’s La. Reports, p. 142; see Slavery As It Is, p.

149,) say “The act chariged here is one itlirely committed in the presence of witnesses,” (whites.) So in the case of 162 ,‘I

Page 163 view page image

CIVIL D)ISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. the state against Mann, (Dcvereux’s N. C.

Reports, p. 263,) in which the defendant was charged with shooting a slave girl belonging to the plaintiff, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in their decision, speaking of the provocations of the master by the slave, and the consequent wrath of the master prompting him to bloody vengeance, add, “A vengeance generally practiced with impunity by reason of its privacy.” (4.) The remedy proposed by southern laws does not accomplish any effectual relief to the slave. The law of South Carolina-the preamble of which we have givendeclares: “Be it enacted, that if any slave shall suffer in life, limb, or member, or shall be maimed, beaten, or abused, contrary to the directions and true intent and meaning of this act, when no white person shall be present, or, being present, shall neglect or refuse to give evidence, or be examined upon oath concerning the same, in every such case the owner or other person who shall have the care and government of such slave, and in whose possession or power such slave shall be, shall be deemed, taken, reported, and atdjudged to be guilty of such offense, and shall be proceeded agatinst accordingly, without further proof, unless such owner or other person as aforesaid, can make the contrary appear by good and sufficient evidence, or shall by his own oath clear and exculpate himself; which oath every court, where such offense shall be tried, is hereby empowered to administer and to acquit the offender, if clear proof of the offense be not made by two witnesses at least.” (Stroud, p. 74.) Louisiana imitates the law of South Carolina.

This law seems to be intended, not for the protection of the slave, but for the special benefit of a cruel master; for the offender inust be acquitted upon his own oath, unless two witnesses can be found against him-an event not expected by the law, as the preamble and the terms in the act show. Hlence, all the provisions of the codes which profess to 163

Page 164 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. protect slaves, are either inefficient or hypocritical. The laws profess to grant protection to the slaves, while at the same time this law, that excludes their testimony, strips them of the only means by which they can make that protection available. Injuries must be legally proved before they can be legally redressed. Therefore, to deprive men of the power of proving their injuries, is itself the greatest injury. This law alone makes all protecting laws nugatory. How can a slave prove outrages perpetrated on him by his master or overseer, when his own testimony and that of all his fellow-slaves is ruled out of court? And the more so, as the slave is in the power of those who injure him, and when the only care necessary on their part is, to see that no white witness is looking on. Ordinarily but one white man, the overseer, is with the slaves while they are at labor. Hence it is difficult to detect, by white witnesses, the cruelties of the whites on their slaves. The law of South Carolina is a specimen. It supposes only one white man on the plantation.

And even then it requires two white witnesses to testify to the third white man, when it is very unusual for more than the overseer alone to be present. This is a fair specimen of the injustice of slavery. (5.) It may not now be improper to see upon what reason the exclusion of colored persons as competent witnesses is founded. It is stated that ” the admission of the testimony of slaves would be dangerous to the lives and fortunes of the whites.” This charge would imply that there is a total absence of veracity among the slaves, which is absurd. And its absurdity is acknowledged, by the fact, that slaves are competent witnesses, not only against each other, but against free persons of color, without any restriction. If the objection is restrained to the testimony of the slave against his master, it presumes the predominance of the utmost depravity of heart in the slave. To concede this is 164

Page 165 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. to impute criminal negligence to the master; for having absolute dominion over the slave, he has, after all, neglected his moral and religious instruction and training. It may be said, the “hope of gain” would induce the slave to testify falsely. This objection, if valid, degrades the master below the level of the slave, in cases in which the mastcr’s interests are concerned. The fear of punishment, in general, is a serious difficulty, and perhaps can not be well allowed, in compassion to the slave, while slavery exists. For the master may inflict severe punishment on the slave, if the latter, though testifyin(, the truth, testifies against his master; and probably, while slavery continues, it would be mercy to relieve him from telling the truth against his owner and oppressor. But this shows the evil nature of slavery, which will not admit the truth to be uttered concerning its doings. To all or most of the objections against the slaves’ testimony, trial by jury is an ample refutation. There are cases among whites in which the testimony of certain persons is rejected; but then this does not amount to any such exclusion as is applied to slaves. And trial by jury will certainly relieve tile difficulty in the case of free colored persons, as well as in the case of white persons of equal credibility. In the various courts great vigilance is necessary, in reference to white persons, in detecting the falsities of testimony. The same care would meet the case of free colored persons effectually, and most of those in which slaves are concerned. And in the cases in which truth would suffer by the testimony of slaves, the system of slavery is to bear the entire blame of this, as it throws in its terrors and cruelties to prevent the utterance of truth, vwhich would condemn the guilty. (6.) The inability of slaves and free colored persons to bear testimony in the United States is without parallel in the history of the world. 165 a

Page 166 view page image

166 CIVIL DISABIILITIES OF SLAVERY. No such incompetency was sanctioned by the Jewish lawgiver. The law of Moses mentions the number of witnesses required to establish the truth, but is silent as to any incompetency on the part of slaves. (Deut. xvii, 6, and xix, 15.) The judges were empowered to decide upon the credibility of witnesses; to proceed against those who testified falsely in a summary way; and to inflict punishment on them when they testified falsely. The villenage of England furnished no authority for the universal application of this rule. Even the civil law, which generally excluded slave testimony, makes so many important exceptions as to admit such testimony on special occasions. This rule of evidence, to the extent to which it obtains in the United States, can not challenge for its support the authority of any country, either ancient or modern, For it is not the evidence of slaves only that is rejected, but also of all free colored persons. (7.) There is a peculiar viciousness in the system of slavery, in rejecting the testimony of slaves and colored persons. The admission of false witnesses is, in Scripture, denounced as one of the most horrible crimes. And Satan himself, the father of lies, is the father of the liar. Now, to reject true testimony is the same crime, in effect, as the admission of false testimony. So slavery, in rejecting the true, admits the false. Although murder, rapes, cruelties, and whippings of all kinds, are constantly perpetrated on the persons of slaves, all must be borne without redress, because the only witnesses are pronounced incompetent. And can such a system, which comprises this wicked rule, be itself other than sinful? Certainly, according to the Bible, such crimes are pronounced as heinous sins. 2. “A slave can not be a party to a civil suit.” (Stroud, p. 6.) “A slave can not stand in judgment for any other purpose than to assert his freedom. He is not even allowed to contest the title of the person holding or claiming him as I .,=

Page 167 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. a slave.” (Berard vs. Berard, et al., February term, 1836, 9 La. Reports, 156; see Wheeler, 197.) (1.) As the slave can not acquire or retain property, as his own, contrary to the will of his master, it results that he can not be a party to a civil suit; for there is no species of civil suit which does not, in some way, affect property. Wheeler presents this point as follows: “Slaves are them selves considered as property, and can neither take, possess, nor retain any, except for the use of their masters. A slave can not be a party to a civil suit, except in the single case where the negro is held as a slave, and he claims to be free. It would be an idle form and ceremony to make a slave a party to a suit, by the instrumentality of which he could recover nothing; or if a recovery could be had, the instant it was recovered would belong to the master. The slave can possess nothing; he can hold nothing. He is, therefore, not a competent party to a suit. And the same rule prevails wherever slavery is tolerated, whether there be legislative enactments upon the subject or not. In all cases where the slave alleges he is free, of course he is a party. He may have a habeas corpus, and if there may be a false return, may sue upon it. Or he may bring trespass for assault and battery, and false imprisonment, to which action, the defendant, to justify himself, must plead the negro is his slave. In many of the states, he may proceed by petition for freedom.” (Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, p.

197.) (2.) There is, however, an exception to this rule, given by the laws of all the slaveholding states to persons held as slaves, but claiming to be free, to prosecute their claims to freedom before some judicial tribunal. The law of South Carolina-which is in substance adopted by other statesallows the person claimed, or his attorney, to sue for freedom; and if the suit be gained, the person claiming the slave is cast in the cost.

But if the unfortunate man claimed 167 I ~i

Page 168 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. as a slave can not make good his cause, the following is the law: “But in case judgment shall be given for the defendant, the said court is hereby fully empowered to inflict such corporeal punishment, not extending to life or limb, on the word of the plaintiff, as they in their discretion shall think fit. Provided, that in any action or suit to be brought in pursuance of the direction of this act, the burden of the proof shall lay on the plaintiff; and it shall be always presumed that every negro, Indian, mulatto, and mestizo, is a slave, unless the contrary be made to appear.” (See Stroud. p. 77.) (3.) Every one must see the injustice and cruelty of this law. “The negro claims to be free, and yet he can bring no suit to investigate his master’s title to restrain him of his liberty, unless some one can be found merciful enough to become his guardian, subject in any event to the expense and trouble of conducting his cause, and in case of a failure, to the cost of suit. His judges and jurors will, in all probability, be slaveholders, and interested, therefore, in some measure, in the question which they are to try. The whole community in which he lives may, so few arc the exceptions, be said to be hostile to his success. Being a negro, by the words of the act, the burden of proof rests upon him, and he is presumed to be a slave till he make the contrary appear. This is to be effected through the instrumentality of white witnesses, as has just been shown, exclusive of the testimony of those who are not white, even though they may be free, and of the fairest character. And, lastly, notwithstanding all these obstacles to the ascertaining of the truth of his allegations, the terror is superadded, should he not succeed in convincing the judge of his right to freedom, of an infliction of co7rporeal punishment to any extent short of capital execution, or the deprivation of a LIMB! And in Georgia, should death happen by accident in giving this legal correction, according to the terms of the constitution 168

Page 169 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. already quoted, it will be no crime! Such legislation forcibly reminds us of the feast of Dionysius, which was supreme beneficence, compared with the terms of mercy contained in this act.” (Stroud, pp. 77-79.) (4.) In South Carolina, by an act of 1802, the white man who carries on the suit in behalf of the colored man, “shall be liable to double costs of suit, if his action shall be adjudged groundless; and shall be liable to pay to the bona fide owner of such slave, all such damages as shall be assessed by a jury and adjudged by any court of common pleas.” In Maryland, the attorney, in a trial for freedom, must pay all costs, if unsuccessful, unless the court shall be of opinion that there was probable cause for supposing the petitioner had a right to freedom. And on such a trial the master is allowed twelve peremptory challenges as to the jury. In Virginia, if the claimant shall fail in his suit a fine of $100 is imposed. In Missouri a poor person may, without cost, ask for a trial; yet it depends on the court, or a single judge, whether the petitioner shall be heard by a jury at all. In Alabama the Legislature has adopted the objectionable parts of the Missouri law, while the beneficial provisions have been omitted. (See Stroud, p. 78, note.) SPEECH OF A SLAVE AT HIS TRIAL.-The following striking anecdote is found in the journal of a traveler. In relating it, we do not justify the slave.

We leave that to those who are ready to fight for their own liberty, while they are willing to withhold liberty from others. “In the afternoon I passed by a field in which several poor slaves had been executed, on the charge of having an intention to rise against their masters. A lawyer who was present at their trials at Richmond, informed me, that one of them being asked what he had to say to the court, in his defense, replied in a manly tone of voice:‘I have nothing more to offer than what General Washington would have had to offer, had hle been taken by the British, and put to 15 169 t’.

Page 170 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. trial by them. I have adventured my life in endeavoring to obtain the liberty of my countrymen, and am a willing sacrifice in their cause; and I beg, as a favor, that I may be immediately led to execution. I know that you have predetermined to shed my blood: why then all this mockery of a trial?’ ” (Sutcliff’s Travels.) The unjust sentiment which presumes every negro to be a slave, obtains in all the slaveholding states, unless perhaps one. In Virginia there is no statute, yet there are judicial decisions which amount to the same. Chancellor Wythe decided, “that whenever one person claims to hold another in slavery, the onus probandi [burden of proof] lies on the claimant.” The supreme court of appeals reversed this decision, and determined that his reasoning was applicable only to ” white persons and native American Indians,” but entirely inapplicable to “native Africans and their descendants.” (Stroud, pp. 79, 80.) In North Carolina the doctrine is confined to the full-blooded African. (5.) This process of arresting real or suspected runaways is a fruitful source of man-stealiny. The white man who can exhibit a colored man in his custody, within the limits of a slaveholding state, is exempted from the necessity of making any proof how he obtained him, or by what authority he claims him as a slave. The colored man, by the laws of the land, is presumed to be a slave. Hence, the manstealer is protected in his robbery by the laws which uphold slavery. By the laws of several slave states manumitted and other free persons of color may be arrested while in the pursuit of lawful business.

If documentary evidence be not produced immediately proving them free, they are thrown into prison, and advertised as runaways. And as there is no owner to appear in these cases, the jailer, after a limited time, is directed to sell them at public auction, as unclaimed fugitive slaves, in order to pay for their unjust detention in illo aL

Page 171 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. prison. Thus freemen and their posterity are doomed to perpetual slavery. (6.) Now, if these acts of injustice are not sinful, then there is no sin in the world. Manstealing can not be sinful, if slavery is right. And to rob a man of his inalienable rights can not be sinful, if slavery be not a system founded and continued by sin. 3. “A slave can not be a party before a judicial tribunal in any species of action, against his master, no matter how atrocious may have been the injury which he has received from him.” (Stroud, p. 57.) 4.

“Submission is required of the slave, not to the will of his master only, but to the will of all other white persons.” (Stroud, p. 97.) An act of Georgia declares, “If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice or justices, according to the directions of this act, shall, for the first offense, suffer such punishment as the said justice or justices shall, in his or their discretion, think fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offense suffer death.” (Stroud, p. 97.) The law of South Carolina is the same, except that death is not made the penalty of the second but of the third offense. But, in both states, when the slave strikes the white person, by the command or in defense of the master, the master shall be answerable, as if the act was committed by himself. In Maryland, for such an offense, the offender’s ears may be cut off, though he be a free black. (Stroud, p. 97.) In Kentucky, the slave or free colored person, for every such offense “shall receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on, by order of such justice.” In Virginia there was a similar law, to which, in 1792, it was added, “Except in those cases where it shall appear to such justice that such negro or mulatto was wantonly assaulted, and 171 !,P

Page 172 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. lifted his or her hand in his or her defense.” (Stroud, p. 98.) Associated with the foregoing, is the following act of Louisiana respecting colored persons. “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 offense.” (Stroud, p. 98.) By the laws of Maryland and South Carolina, if the slave resist being examined or seized by any white person, the slave may be lawfully killed. (Stroud, p. 99.) Slavery requires unbounded submission from the slave to his master. The life of the slave is in the power of the master; and yet the slave must not resist, even to save his life. Not only so, but the slave is under the like submission to every white person, with little reference to character or motives. These laws furnish either a pretext or an inducement to ignoble minds to tyrannize over and oppress the defenseless slave, who is compelled to endure every personal injury which any white person may inflict. 5. A third person may injure the slave.

Slaves being property, if injured by third persons, their owners may bring suit and recover damages for the injury. This is a maxim of the common law, with respect to property in general, and it therefore applies to slaves in general, wherever they exist. The law does not operate as a shield to the slave against corporeal injury, unless the violence used deteriorates the value of the slave. The purpose of the law is not the protection of the slave, but of the master’s right of property. And though this is proclaimed to be a sufficient protection to the slave, it would be more just to say, that it is the only protection granted to him. The chastity of a female slave may be violated, the person of the slave assaulted; Ip 172

Page 173 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. but if the pecuniary value of the slave be not injured, then all is well enough. 6. Slaves can make no contracts. A slave can not con tract matrimony; the association among them, sometimes called marriage, is, as before observed, properly called con tubernium, or concubinage, to which no sanctity or civil rights are attached. The slave can not buy, or sell, or trade. He can not hire himself. The slave can not inherit any property by descent or purchase. It is true, benevolent masters often permit them to make gains in various ways; but this is not done with the permission, much less the authority of law, but is rather a violation of it. Besides, these are only small perquisites, which never amount to any thing like independence, or the acquisition of wealth or permanent property. (Stroud, pp. 45-50 and 61, 62.) 7. Slaves can not redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such change necessary to their personal safety. This proposition holds good as to the right of redemption in all the slaveholding states. And it is equally true in regard to the change of masters, except in Louisiana. In this state a slave may demand a change of masters for cruel treatment, provided the master can be convicted of this crime, or the judge will deem it proper to allow it; two conditions that can rarely be found to exist. The words of the act are: “When the master shall be convicted of cruel treatment of his slave, and the judge shall deem it proper to pronounce, besides the penalty established for such cases, that the slave shall be sold at public auction, in order to place him out of the reach of the power which his master has abused.” 8. The laws preventing emancipation in general, and restraining it in cases in which it is allowed, are at variance with the principles of justice. (1.) The master’s benevolence to his slave can not be 15* 173 “I I

Page 174 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. exercised by emancipation, without the consent of his creditors. This is a principle pervading every code in the slaveholding states. In Virginia and Mississippi an emancipated slave may be taken in execution, to satisfy any debt contracted by the person emancipating him previous to such emancipation. In Kentucky the act contains a saving of the right of creditors. The new civil code of Louisiana amounts to the same. (Stroud, p. 146.) In addition to the obstacle of emancipation, which is created by the saving clause in favor of creditors, a similar one exists in reference to the widows of deceased slaveholders. If the widow’s thirds are not met in the real estate, then the slaves, though manumitted by the husband, are held as liable, and may be sold to make up the third. (Stroud, p. 146.) (2.) The most formidable difficulties to emancipation arise from the mode by which it may be effected. In some states it is only by special legislative acts that a valid emancipation can be effected. In other states there are general acts under which emancipation can be effected. In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, emancipation can take place only by a special act in each case. The slaveholder can not, in these states, get rid of his slaves, unless he sell them as chattels, or can obtain the special act of the legislature authorizing emancipation, a thing very rarely granted. Or even if he permits the slave to work for himself, he is fined. In Georgia, by the act of 1801, an attempt to set a negro free, except by legislative act, incurs a fine of $200 for every such offense; and “the slaves so manumitted and set free shall be still, to all intents and purposes, as much in a state of slavery as before they were manumitted.” And by the act of 1818 it was determined that any master, who, by will and testament, deed, or otherwise, whether by I! 174 r

Page 175 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. way of trust or otherwise, would attempt to confer freedom on the slave, or secure to the slave the right of working for himself, the master may be fined in a sum not exceeding $1,000, and such slave may be sold at public outcry. (Stroud, pp. 147, 148.) In Mississippi all the obstacles found in all the states, seemed to be combined and set in array against freedom, as if it was the greatest mischief in the world. Thus, the emancipation must be by an instrument in writing, a last will or deed, etc., under seal, attested by at least two credi ble witnesses, or acknowledged in the court of the county or corporation where the emancipator resides; proof satis factory to the General Assembly must be adduced that the slave has done some meritorious act for the benefit of his master, or rendered some distinguished service to the state; all which circumstances are but prerequisites, and one of no efficacy till a special act of Assembly sanctions the emancipation; to which may be added, a saving of the rights of creditors, and the protection of the widow’s thirds. (Stroud, p. 149.) (3.) In some states emancipation may be effected under general acts of the legislature, as in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Virginia. The law of North Carolina, of 1777, enacts, “That no negro or mulatto slave shall hereafter 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 if a slave should be set free in any other manner, the slave may then be sold to the highest bidder by the sheriff.

(Stroud, p. 148.) The law of Tennessee is the same with that of North Carolina, except an additional proviso, enacted in 1801, which required the emancipation to be “consistent with the interest and policy of the state.” (Stroud, p. 149.) Kentucky, in 1798, enacted the following law, which is II I’! 176 r&  p

Page 176 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. still in force: “It shall be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament, or by any other instrument in writing, under his or her hand and seal, attested and proved in the county court by two witnesses, or acknowl edged by the party in the court of the county where he or she resides, to emancipate or set free his or her slave or slaves, who shall thereupon be entirely and fully discharged from the performance of any contract entered into during their servitude, and enjoy their full freedom, as if they had been born free. And the said court shall have full power to demand bond and sufficient security of the emancipator, his or her executors, etc., for the maintenance of any slave or slaves that may be aged or infirm, either of body or mind, to prevent him, her, or them becoming chargeable to the county; and every slave so emancipated shall have a certificate of his freedom from the clerk of such court on parchment, with the county seal affixed thereto, etc., saving, however, the rights of creditors.” The law of Missouri is substantially the same with the law of Kentucky. (Stroud, pp. 149, 150.) In these states there is certainly no serious restraint on those who are disposed to set their slaves at liberty. In Virginia the law is similar to the laws of Kentucky and Missouri, with the following inhuman proviso: “If any emancipated slave-infants excepted-shall remain within the state more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right, and may be apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor, etc., for the benefit of the literary fund.”

(Stroud, p. 18.) Emancipation in Maryland may be effected by deed or will, duly attested. The decision of Maryland is in conformity with the law of villenage, as well as the civil law. But such an emancipation in North or South Carolina is utterly void. 176

Page 177 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. In Louisiana, except “a slave who has saved the life of his master, his master’s wife, or one of his children,” none can be set at liberty under the age of thirty years. Per sons over this age may be emancipated by a last will, hemmed in by considerable obstructions. If it be by deed, it must be after being forty days publicly advertised, and no opposition being made to it-a condition that will rarely be favorable to emancipation among a community of slave holders.

Neverthless, Louisiana has a mildness in this mat ter beyond most other of the far southern states, although her code, as a whole, is nearly a perfect barrier against emancipation.” (Stroud, p. 153, 154.) Wheeler, in a note on his chapter on emancipation, says: “It will be seen by this chapter, that the owner of slaves may emancipate them by deed, will, or by contract executed. But to this benevolence of the owner there are, in the most of the states, restraints upon the exercise of this power by the owner. Slaves are recognized, wherever the system is tolerated, as property, and are subject to all the rules in the acquisition, possession, and transmission of property. It would seem, therefore, upon a first view of the case, that the owner should do with his property whatever he pleased, and should have the privilege of renouncing his right to it whenever he pleased, and without being qualified by any public laws or regulations upon the subject. Such, however, is not the fact; restraints upon this right exist in nearly all the states. When it is considered that slaves are a peculiar species of property, it will not excite surprise that laws are necessary for their regulation, and to protect society from even the benevolence of slaveowners, in throwing among the community a great number of stupid, ignorant, and vicious persons, to disturb its peace and to endanger its permanency.” (Wheeler, pp. 386-388.) (4.) The moral evils chargeable on the laws which prevent, discourage, or embarrass emancipation are numerous 177

Page 178 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. and aggravating, and can not be reconciled with common justice or the Bible. First. The impediments to emancipation interfere with the rights of property, according to the southern definition of property. As the right of property in the slave belongs to the master, it is plain that the master ought, at his pleasure, relinquish his right to the slave whenever he pleases; and to restrain this right of disposing of property is as inconsistent as to prevent from acquiring it.

The laws, therefore, which prohibit or restrain emancipation are unconstitutional in the states which enact and enforce them. Second. This also interferes with the rights of conscience. By these laws the slaveowner must continue a slaveowner, however his conscience may accuse him of wrong for being an owner of his fellow-beings. The Bible enjoins on the conscience to avoid oppression and wrong of every kind; and yet the system of slavery, in most states, prevents men from acting according to the dictates of conscience. Third. Hence, those laws which prohibit or restrain emancipation encourage and maintain sinful oppression of men; for the action of state legislatures and grateful masters, who have emancipated slaves for meritorious services, prove that holding innocent men in slavery is sinful. Every such emancipation is an attestation that slavery is wrong, and liberty is a good. When slaves are freed for meritorious services, liberty, by this act, is declared to be the highest gift which can be bestowed on the slaves. He, therefore, who holds slaves, holds them in deprivation of what slave legislatures have declared a blessing to them. Slaveholders, therefore, by granting freedom as a reward, admit that slavery punishes the innocent, and is therefore sinful.

Fourth. The consequence of this embargo laid on the consciences of citizens has been, that multitudes of the best 178

Page 179 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. citizens of the slavehlolding states have been induced to abandon their native states, and settle in free states, in order to be relieved from this antichristian necessity, laid onil them by unjust laws. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, especially the southern portions of these states, have been replenished with large numbers of refugees from the unjust laws of slavery especially the law which prohibits, em barrasses, or restrains emancipation. Nor are the southern states recompensed by the many emigrants from the free states, should their number ever be equal. These northern men, who, though trained in the principles of freedom, throw away their conscientious scruples, are men of the worst character; hence, being without conscientious control, they become the worst masters. This is the history of the world. In every country those who were raised non-slaveholders are the worst masters; for the plain reason, that, in becoming masters, they knowingly and deliberately act contrary to their convictions of right; and doing it in this case, they will do it in others. The love of gain made them slaveholders; the love of more gain makes them the worst class of slaveholders. He that is a slaveholder by education, or by inheritance, is much more likely to be humane than he who is a slaveholder for the sake of gain, as most of the northern men are who are slaveholders. The south, then, lose their good men, and recive in their place a bad class of men, very little under the control of conscience. Fifth. We shall notice the plea of slaveholders, taken from their mouth by Mr. Wheeler, that restraining laws are necessary “to protect society from even the benevolence of slaveowners, in throwing into the community a great number of stupid, ignorant, and vicious persons, to disturb its peace, and to endanger its permanency.” The slave system can not allow of the exercise of benevolence. It began in malevolence, or a want of goodwill to man, cherished by 179 SL.

Page 180 view page image

CIVIL DISABILITIES OF SLAVERY. ambition and lust; and the whole system is at war, in systematic organization, against both private and public benevolence. Besides, the members which it furnishes for society, according to the excuse of the slaveholders, are “stupid, ignorant, and vicious persons,” who are just prepared to “disturb the peace and permanency of the community.” Nothing good in itself, or tending to good, will ever restrain the full exercise of benevolence; nor will it make men stupid, ignorant, vicious, nor disturb the peace of society. And as slavery, in its restraints on emancipation, seems compelled to pursue such evil measures, the whole system should be abandoned by a general emancipation, in the best, the safest, and shortest way possible to accomplish the object. The long list of wrongs inflicted by slavery, under the items comprised in this single chapter, stamps it with a degree of sinfulness which, of itself, is sufficient to condemn it in the sight of all good men. And, indeed, the wisest and best of men have deliberately decided, that the wrongs included under this list alone attach to slavery the character of the highest felony, which, according to the principles of justice, would condemn the felons as guilty of high criminal character, and worthy of suitable punishment. 180

Page 181 view page image

PART III. INJURIES INFLICTED BY AMERICAN SLAVERY. 11Ill1 1

Page 182 view page image

Page 183 view page image

CHAPTER I. EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. Is the preceding chapters, except the first, we took a survey of the rights of which slavery deprives men. We will now consider its wrongs; for slavery is a system of injuries which inflicts wrongs on innocent persons. The primary objects of just laws are the establishment of rights and the prohibition of wrongs. Injuries or wrongs, for the most part, convey to us an idea merely negative, or being nothing else than a privation of right. The contemplation of what is just, or right, is necessarily prior to what may be termed injuria, injuries or wrongs; and the definition of fas, right, precedes that of nefas, wrong. Wrongs, according to Blackstone, book iii, 2, are divisible into two sorts or species-private wrongs and public wrongs. Private wrongs are an infringement or privation of the private or civil rights belonging to individuals, considered as individuals, and are mostly termed civil injuries. Public wrongs are a breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community, and are distinguished by the harsher names of crimes and misdemeanors. Wrongs, or injuries, whether private or public-whether inflicted by individuals or communities-by laws or individual interference-are contrary to the word of God, and expressly forbidden in holy Scripture in the plainest manner, and under the most awful sanctions. Nothing is plainer than the following: “Thou shalt not kill;” “Thou shalt not steal;” ” Though shalt not bear false witness;” ”’ Thou shalt not covet.” Oppression, injury, and wrong, are as expressly forbidden as any thing else in Scripture. And the wrongs inflicted on slaves by the slave laws, by the judicial decisions supporting and explaining these laws, by the general practice under the laws, and the no less powerful 183

Page 184 view page image

184 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. customs growing out of the decisions and enactments, are clearly forbidden in the word of God, and point out the sinfulness of slavery as clearly as that theft, murder, perjury, and covetousness, are sinful and wrong. It will now be our task to specify some of the leading wrongs or injuries of slavery, which demonstrate its sinfulness. This will appear from the penalties and wrongs inflicted on the slaves by the laws in the civil courts. The principal of these will be comprehended under the following heads: 1. The slave is subjected to an extensive system of cruel enactments. Parts of this system apply to the slave alone; and for every breach of law a severe punishment is demanded. And punishments of much greater severity are inflicted oi the slaves than upon the whites for those offenses for which whites and slaves are amenable. Besides, with very few exceptions, the penal laws to which slaves alone are subject, relate, not to violation of the moral or divine law, but to mere human enactments or requirements, in themselves of no moral import. In South Carolina and Georgia, if a slave be found beyond the limits of the town in which he lives, or off the plantation where he is usually employed, without the company of a white person, or a written permission from his master or employer, any person may apprehend and punish him, “with whipping on the bare back, not exceeding twenty lashes.”

In Mississippi there is a similar punishment by the direction of a justice; and in Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, at the discretion of the justice, both as to the imposition of the punishment and the number of stripes. (Stroud, p. 100.) In South Carolina and Georgia, if a slave be out of the house, etc., or off the plantation, etc., of his master, without

Page 185 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 185 some white person in company, and shall refuse to submit to an examination of any white person, such white person may apprehend and moderately correct him, and if he resist or strike such white person, he may be lawfully killed. (Stroud, p.

101.) In Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland, if a slave shall presume to come upon the plantation of any person, without leave in writing from his master, employer, etc., not being sent on lawful business, the owner of the plantation may inflict ten lashes for every such offense. (Stroud, p. 101.) In South Carolina and Georgia, any white person, who shall see more than seven men-slaves, without some white person with them, traveling or assembled together, in any high road, may apprehend such slaves, and inflict a whipping on each of them, not exceeding twenty lashes apiece. (Stroud, p. 101.) In South Carolina, if a slave or Indian shall take away or let loose, (in North Carolina or Tennessee, take away,) any boat or canoe from a landing or other place where the owner may have made the same fast, for the first offense he shall receive thirtynine lashes on the bare back, and for the second offense shall forfeit, and have cut off from his head, one ear. (Stroud, p. 102.) In Kentucky and Virginia, for keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or shot, or a club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave incurs for each offense thirtynine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace. In North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice. In Kentucky, a slave, for having any article for sale, without a ticket of permission from his master, particularly specifying the same and authorizing its sale, receives ten lashes, by order of the captain of the patrollers. If the slave be 16*

Page 186 view page image

186 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. taken before a magistrate, thirtynine lashes may be ordered. It is similar in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi. (Stroud, p. 102.) In Kentucky and Missouri, if a slave be in an unlawful assembly, the captain of the patrollers may inflict ten lashes on him. In Kentucky, if the slave be taken before a magistrate he may direct thirtynine lashes. The augmentation of crimes, under the name of unlawful assemblies, is a favorite measure of all despotic governments for the suppression of liberal principles. Many of the unlawful assemblies in the slaveholding states concern meetings of slaves or colored people for mental improvement of any kind, as religious meetings. Others of them concern any meetings in which slaves would meet in view of taking any step whatever to obtain freedom or the melioration of their condition, whether by petition, remonstrance, or any other thing.

(Stroud, p. 102.) In North Carolina, for traveling by himself from his master’s land to any other place, unless by the most usual and accustomed road, the owner of the land on which such slave may be found is authorized to inflict forty lashes on him; for traveling in the night without a pass, forty lashes; or being found in another person’s negro quarters or kitchen forty lashes; and every negro in whose company such vagrant slave may be found, incurs also twenty lashes. (Stroud, p. 103.) In North Carolina, any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in swamps. (Stroud, p. 103.) For hunting with dogs, in the woods even of his master, the slave is subjected to a whipping of thirty lashes, in North Carolina. Suchi was once the law in Virginia. “In 1705
two justices of the peace were authorized, by proclamation, to outlaw runaways, who might thereafter be killed and destroyed

Page 187 view page image

EXCESSIVE I’ENALTIES INCURRIED BY THE SLAVE. 187 by any person whatever, by such ways and means as he might think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime for so doing.” Speaking of this and similar laws, Judge Tucker, of Virginia, says: “Such are the cruelties to which a state of slavery gives birth; such the horrors to which the human mind is capable of being reconciled by its adoption.” Again: he says, “In 1772
some restraints were laid upon the practice of outlawing slaves, requiring that it should appear to the satisfaction of the justices, that the slaves were outlying and doing mischief. These loose expressions of the act left too much in the discretion of men not much addicted to weighing their import. In 1792 every thing relative to the outlawry of slaves was expunged from our code, and, I trust, will never again find a place in it.” (Appendix to Blackstone’s Commentaries, second part, pp. 56, 57; Stroud, p. 103.) In South Carolina, a slave endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions, arms, horse, etc., be furnished for the purpose of aiding the runaway, shall be punished with death. And a slave who shall aid and abet the slave who endeavors to aid another slave to run away, shall also suffer death. (Stroud, p. 103.) If a slave harbor, conceal, or entertain a runaway slave, in South Carolina and Georgia, he is subjected to corporeal punishment, to any extent not affecting life or limb. In Maryland thirtynine stripes is the penalty for harboring one hour. (Stroud, p. 104.) In Louisiana, a slave, for being on horseback without the written permission of his master, incurs twenty lashes. In Mississippi, for keeping a dog, the like punishment. In South Carolina, for killing a deer, though by the command of his master, overseer, etc., unless such command can be proved by ticket in writing, twenty lashes. In Maryland, “for being guilty of rambling, riding, or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in the daytime without leave, a

Page 188 view page image

188 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 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 render him unfit for labor.” (Stroud, p. 105.) In Mississippi, as late as 1824, perhaps the most cruel law that ever existed was enacted. The jailer, when a slave is committed to him, is required to interrogate the slave as to who his master is, then write to the master, and if the statement of the slave be incorrect, he is “to give the slave twentyfive lashes well laid on;” and then proceed to a new interrogation, and a new whipping, and repeat them for six months if the slave have given wrong information. And the jailer is irresponsible for the manner in which hlie performs this duty. (Stroud, pp. 105, 106.) 2.

The penal code of the slaveholding states inflicts punishments of much greater severity upon slaves than upon white persons convicted of similar offenses. In Virginia, murder in the first degree, and arson, are crimes punishable with death, whether the offender be white or black, bond or free. But there are at least seventy-one crimes for which slaves are capitally punished, though in none of these are whites punished in a manner more severely than imprisonment in the penitentiary. (Stroud, pp.

107-110.) In Mississippi, where the laws in regard to slaves are much less severe than in Virginia, there are twelve crimes for which death is the punishment for all. But there are at least thirty-eight crimes for which slaves are punished with death, but for which white persons are punished only with imprisonment, fine, or the like. In Kentucky, whites forfeit life for four crimes only; while there are eleven crimes for which slaves are capitally punished. All other offenses, when perpetrated by slaves, are punishable with whipping only, not exceeding thirtynine lashes, except for advising the murder of any one; and for this offense one hundred may be given.

Page 189 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 189 In South Carolina, white persons suffer death for twenty seven offenses; slaves for thirtysix offenses. In Georgia, whites are punished capitally for three crimes only; slaves for at least nine.- All other offenses, com mitted by slaves, may be punished at the discretion of the court before whom the slave may be tried, not extending to life or limb. (Stroud, pp. 110-117.) Slaves, offending against the laws, are chiefly subjected to two species of punishment-whipping and death. Crop ping and the pillory are seldom directed, unless in con junction with whipping. In some states transportation is authorized, upon certain conditions, as a commutation for death. To secure the person of a slave previous to trial, imprisonment is resorted to. But as a punishment after conviction, except in Louisiana, it is unknown. The exclusion of imprisonment, or penitentiary, as a mode of punishmnent for slaves, has led to the multiplication of capital offenses. As dismemberment would diminish the value of slaves, it has been but little resorted to. Corporeal punishment, not extending to life or limb-which is another name for excessive whipping-though sanctioned in some cases, is liable to the same objection as dismemberment. “In general, therefore, death has been resorted to,” says Stroud, “as the only punishment, according to the sentiments of slaveholders, adapted to a state of slavery, for all offenses except those of a brutal nature.”

(Stroud, pp. 1 17 L119.) 3. Slaves are prosecuted and tried upon criminal accusations, ill a manner inconsistent with the rights of humanity. Trial by jury is the palladium of civil liberty. It was imported from England by the American colonies, and became an integral part of their laws. But, as African slavery originated in the foulest iniquity, and was continued in the same temper, ard by means similar to its source, trial by jury in general was not allowed to the slaves. It

Page 190 view page image

190 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. is true that the Constitution of the United States and those of the states secure to the citizen, impeached of crime, the benefit of trial by jury; but as usage had left the slave out of the range of this provision, the like exclusion continues to this day in most of the states. Yet there is considerable of diversity on this subject in the different states. In Kentucky, a slave charged with an offense punishable with death, is entitled to the benefit both of the grand and petit juries. He is to be “tried and prosecuted in the circuit courts only, and in the same manner, and under the same forms of trial, as are by law prescribed in the cases of free persons.” In Georgia, on capital charges, there is no provision for a grand jury; yet a trial by a petit jury is guaranteed. The law of Mississippi is similar to that of Georgia. In Alabama it is similar. In Maryland, when the life of a slave is pending, trial by jury is granted. But in the minor offenses, the summary mode of whipping is resorted to without such formalities as juries. (Stroud, pp. 119-123.) But trial by jury is denied to the slave, even in criminal accusations which may affect his life, in the states of South Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana. The substitute of trial by jury is called “the justices and freeholders’ court.” In South Carolina this court is composed of two justices, and three, four, or five freeholders.

In Louisiana a judge of the court may act in the place of the two justices. In Virginia the court is five justices, with the aid of counsel, and the justices must decide unanimously. Besides, in the trial of a slave, the testimony of a slave, without oath or solemn affirmation, is deemed sufficient. Such is the summary manner in which slaves are punished for capital offenses. (Stroud, pp. 123-126.) The most general punishment for slaves is “corporeal punishment, not extending to life or limb,” as the expression is generally in the acts of legislatures. Cutting off the

Page 191 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 191 ears, and the pillory, are in force in Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Delaware. But the punishment of universal prevalence is WHIPPING. The infliction of this punishment to the extent of “twenty lashes on the bare back, well laid on,” in very many cases, needs not the in tervention of any magistrate.

Any white person, of any description, in many cases, may do this. And should even death ensue by accident, while the slave is receiving mod erate correction, the Constitution of Georgia and the laws of North Carolina denominate the offense justifiable homi cide. In offenses requiring thirtynine or forty lashes, the case is mostly brought before a magistrate. 4. As the slave can not read, he can not know what the law means, or whether there be such laws as condemn him, till the penalties of the broken law fall upon him. He can not read-he can not learn to read. To exact obedience to a law not promulgated, or which can not be known if pro mulgated, is most unjust and cruel. The laws of the south have been formed, and now exist, under the charge of this cruelty. The hardened convict in the penitentiary has the laws read to him on entrance into its walls. But the guiltless slave is subjected to an extensive system of cruel enactments, of no part of which, probably, has he ever heard. “In 1824 a Virginia jury propounded to the judges of the Court of Appeals, the highest court of law in that state, this question:‘Can a master be indicted for beating his slave cruelly, inhumanly, and beyond the bounds of moderation?’ The Court said that this was a very’grave’ and’delicate’

question, which they should not then decide. This question has never been decided judicially in any of the slave states; nor has it been raised in any except Virginia. But who does not see that not to decide was deciding it? The most solemn decision in favor of the master could have conferred no power, which the withholding of a decision did not leave him. It left right with might, where it

Page 192 view page image

192 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. has always been, and gave a new sanction to the unholy union by refusing to disturb it.” (Child’s Oration.) 5. The master may, at his discretion, inflict any species of punishment upon the person of his slave. This power of the master, to the extent here implied, is not sanctioned by express law. On the contrary, as far as the laws are concerned, the life, at least, of the slave is safe from the authorized violence of the master. Laws are not wanting; but they can not be enforced. The laws do not sanction crime, but they do not punish it. This arises chiefly from the exclusion of the testimony of colored persons from the trial of a white person. There was a time, too, when the murder of a slave, in most of the states, was followed by ai pecuniary fine only. Now, the willful, malicious, and deliberate murder of a slave, by a white person, is declared to be punishable with death in every state. (Stroud, pp. 36, 37.) The law of North Carolina, of 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, etc., that if any person shall hereafter be guilty of willfully and maliciously killing a slave, such offender 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 to his lawful owner or master, or to any slave dying under moderate

Page 193 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 193 correction.” The law of Tennessee has a like proviso. The law of Georgia is similar, with a similar proviso, in these words: “Except in Case of insurrection of such slave, and unless such death should happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction.” The impunity granted to the murderer of the outlawed slave is certainly inconsistent with the declaration of North Carolina, that there is no difference between the murder of a white and colored person; especially as a declaration of outlawry is authorized when a slave runs away from his master, conceals in some obscure retreat, and to sustain life procures provisions as best he can. Furthermore, to call the “correction ” of a slave which causes death moderate is absurd; for how could that be moderate which produces death? Finally: this moderate correction of a slave robs him of the protection of the act, when the murderer is on his trial. On trials for capital offenses, the compassion of a jury is ready to seize on any plausible plea to free themselves from the painful duty of convicting a fellow-creature. Strong evidence will not be required to induce the belief that the murderer’s design was correction-that the measure was moderate, and, of course, the death was accidental. In South Carolina, the willful murder of a slave is punished by death, if it can be proved by white persons. But “if any person shall, on a sudden heat or passion, or by undue correction, kill his own slave, or the slave of any other person,” he shall be fined in the sum of five hundred dollars. Where the life of a slave is so feebly protected, his limbs can not be secure, as the following law of South Carolina, in 1740, will show, and which is now in force, as far as we can ascertain: “In case any person shall willfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb or member or shall inflict any othler cruel punishment, other than by 17

Page 194 view page image

194 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. whipping or beating with a horsewhip or cow. skin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds current money.” Here the direct legislation sanctions the beating, without limit, with a horsewhip, cow-skin, switch, or small stick, putting on irons, or imprisoning for life. Thus the legislature sanctions inflictions at least as bad as those it denominates cruel punishments. South Carolina has yet much to learn from the Christian code. Nay, her legislators would do well to go to school to Moses, whose law teaches, “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. Louisiana, in her revised code, follows closely enough the example of South Carolina, as follows: “The slave is entirely subject to the will of his master, who may correct and chastise him, though not with unusual riayon, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death.” The import of unusual rigor may be learned from the fact, that the law in South Carolina had been in full force in Louisiana for many years before the revised code was adopted, so that the usage of South Carolina was the common usage of Louisiana. While the laws of Mississippi forbid all inhumanity and injury to slaves extending to life or limb, the laws also declare, “No cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted on any slave within this state,”

under the penalty of a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars. But without the testimony of the slave, a law of this nature is nugatory, in general.

Besides, cruel or unusual mean precisely the same thing, and will be so construed by the court. And 711

Page 195 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 195 what horrible cruelties may be inflicted under the name of usutal punishments, may be gathered from the laws of South Carolina and Louisiana. The Constitution of Missouri empowers the Legislature “to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb.” It is also made the duty of the Legislature “to pass such laws as may be necessary for this purpose.” In the place of protecting laws, according to the Constitution, there is an act which confers on the master a power which may be perverted to the most cruel purposes. “If any slave resist his or her master, mistress, overseer, or employer, or refuse to obey his or her lawful commands, it shall be lawful for such master, etc., to commit such slave to the common gaol of the county, there to remain at the pleasure of the master, etc.; and the sheriff shall receive such slave, and keep him, etc., in confinement, at the expense of the person committing him or her.” In most cases, before such imprisonments are resorted to, we may expect that great severity of chastisement had previously been administered to the unhappy slave. (Stroud, pp. 37-43.) “Upon a fair review of what has been written on the subject of this proposition, the result is found to be, that the master’s power to inflict corporeal punishment to any extent, short of life and limb, is fully sanctioned by law, in all the slaveholding, states-that the master, in at least two states, is expressly protected in using the horsewhip and cow-skin as instruments for beating his slave-that he may, with entire impunity, in the same states, load his slave with ii-ons, or subject him to perpetual imprisonment whenever he may so choose-that for cruelly scalding, willfully cutting out the tongue, putting out an eye, and for any other dismemberment, if proved, a fine of one hundred pounds currency only is incurred in South Carolina-that

Page 196 view page image

196 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED B3Y TIIE SLAVE. though in all the states the willful, deliberate, and mali cious murder of the slave is now directed to be punished with death, yet, as in the case of a white offender, none except whites can give evidence, a conviction can seldom, if ever, take place.” (Stroud, p. 43.) 6. “All the power of the master over the slave may be exercised, not by himself only in person, but by any one whom he may depute as his agent.” (Stroud, p. 44.) Louisiana is the only state which has formally legislated on this point, although usage in other states is of the same authority with law. The language of the act of Louisiana is a good definition of slavery, and is as follows: “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 him, his said master, or from them.” (Stroud, p. 44.) Stevens, in his “Slavery of the West Indies,” p. 46, gives in the following language the picture of slavery in every place where it exists: “The slave is liable to be coerced or punished by the whip, and to be tormented by every species of personal ill treatment, subject only to the exceptions already mentioned-that is, the deprivation of life or limb-by the attorney, manager, overseer, driver, and every other person to whose government or control the owner may choose to subject him, as fully as by the owner himself. Nor is any special mandate or express general power necessary for this purpose; it is enough that the inflictor of the violence is set over the slave for the moment, by the owner, or by any of his delegates or sub-delegates, of whatever rank or character.” This power of deputation is one of the worst features of

Page 197 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 197 slavery, although it is necessary to the existence of slavery. It was not permitted by the law of villenage. The chief delegate of the master is the overseer, thus described by Wirt, in his life of Patrick Henry: “Last and lowest, a feculum of beings called overseers-the most abject, de graded, 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.” But, with Mr. Wirt’s leave, the driver may compete with the overseer for this distinction; or perhaps many slaveholders may excel either overseer or driver for the distinction which Mr. Wirt gives to his overseer. 7. We present some practical theories of southern men here, as well as practical examples of treating slaves, which will reveal the heart of slavery better than any abstract reasoning on the subject.

The following is from an essay by a distinguished southerner, who enters on the consideration of chastisement with great deliberation: ” How ought slaves to be punished? On this subject we may safely appeal to experience.

It is certain that no punishment is equally efficient in every case. While the occasional application of the whip tends greatly to preserve the obedience of some, it is not even dreaded by others. Under these circumstances the slaveholder is bound to study thorotughly the character of his people-to watch their conduct with a sleepless eye, in order to discover the secret spring of their actions. The punishments usually resorted to are, 1. Corporeal; 2. Solitary confinement in stocks, or solitary confinement alone; 3. Deprivation of privileges; 4. Additional labor; 5. Transportation. When corporeal punishment is inflicted pursuant to a law of the state, the slave can receive but thirtynine stripes; it is seldom, indeed, that the owner gives as many. This mode of arresting the commission of crime can not be dispensed with. In many cases it is the only instrument which can confidently be 17*

Page 198 view page image

198 EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. relied on to meliorate the character of the refractory delinquent. If to our army the disuse of the lash has been prejudicial, to the slaveholder it would operate to deprive him of the main support to his authority. For the first class of offenses, I consider imprisonment in the stocks at night, with or without hard labor in the day, as a powerful auxiliary in the cause of good government. His regular duty having been performed, the slave anticipates the approach of night with the liveliest emotions. To him it is the period when he can freely indulge in the various inclinations of the mind. Then, unrestrained and unwatched, if I may be allowed the expression, he acts in any manner which his interest or his pleasure might dictate. Deprive him of this great source of enjoyment-take from him these hours usually passed with his associates, and you readily accomplish that which no other known scheme has yet effected. To the correctness of this opinion, many can bear testimony. Experience has convinced me, that there is no punishment to which the slave looks with more horror than that upon which I am commenting, and none which has been attended with happier results. “Among the privileges of the slave may be numbered that of task work. When his daily labor is finished, he is at liberty to cultivate his crop, or otherwise to attend to his own concerns. For some offenses the changing of task work into constant labor from sun to sun, reserving a short period only for meals, is a wise and useful regulation. To this punishment, if the crime be of an aggravated nature, the withholding from the transgressor his usual portion of tobacco, meat, and other comforts, might be added. Another very efficacious means of correcting bad conduct, is the imposition of labor additional to the task work. For theft, this is a rational punishment. It is proper on ordinary principles, that the slave by his labor should compensate for the loss, which, through the knavery, the master has sustained.

Page 199 view page image

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE SLAVE. 199 Whenever it is obvious that the character of the criminal is not likely to be amended by any of the means to which I have so briefly adverted, or, that frequent recurrence to rigorous punishment is unavoidable to that end, it is far better to expel him from society than to contaminate it by his example.” (Whitemarsh B.

Seabrook, of South Carolina.) L 1 j

Page 200 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. CHAPTER II. PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES, IN

REFERENCE TO LABOR, FOOD, CLOTHING, DWELLINGS, AND HEALTH. THE slaves, in perfect keeping with the system of slavery, may be deprived of the comforts and conveniences of life suitable to rational creatures. We will instance in their labor, food, clothiny, dwellinys, and health. This head may be termed privations of the slaves. 1. The master may determine the kind, and degree, and time of labor to which the slave shall be subject.

In most of the slaveholding states the law is silent on this point. The codes of Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi, speak on the subject. The law of Georg,ia, of 1817, says: “Any owner of a slave or slaves who shall cruelly beat such slave or slaves, by unnecessary or excessive whipping, by withholding proper food and sustenance, by requiring greater labor from such slave or slaves, than he, she, or they are able to perform, by not affording proper clothing, whereby the health of such slave or slaves may be injured and impaired, every such owner or owners shall, upon sufficient information being laid before the grand jury, be by said jury presented, whereupon it shall be the duty of the attorney or solicitor-general to prosecute said owner or owners, who, on conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine or be imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court.” (Stroud, p. 26.) The ostensible design of the law is to afford protection to the slave; but as the testimony of colored persons can not be received against a white person, the law is a dead letter in most cases. The “requiring greater labor than the slave is able to perform,” forms a charge of a criminal nature. Every thing must therefore be strictly proved, and the law must be strictly defined; and this would require that all the illegal r I 200 a 

Page 201 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. circumstances enumerated in the law should exist, and be proved against the master, to constitute the single crime of cruelty to the slave. Besides, the cruelty of the owner only is made penal; while the exaction of too much labor by the overseer is not provided against. Hence, any cruelties by the overseer must pass unpunished. In the preamble of the law of South Carolina, of 1740, it is said, “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.” The act then fixes the hours of labor not to exceed ifteen hours, from March to September, nor four teen hours, from September to March. The penalty is from five to twenty pounds, current money. In Mississippi, the law allows half an hour for breakfast during the year, and two hours for dinner in summer, and an hour and a half in winter; but if the meals of the slaves are prepared for them, half an hour may be taken from the dinner hour. The laws of South Carolina and Louisiana, as well as those of Georgia, are incapable of being executed, and therefore inoperative, and must give way to the cupidity of the master, whenever circumstances excite the passion of gain.

The time of labor in South Carolina is enormous; it may reach fourteen or fifteen hours a day. In Jamaica ten hours was the extent to which slaves could be employed in work. In the penitentiaries of Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia, the time of labor does not exceed eight hours, in November, December, and January, nine in February and October, and ten hours the rest of the year. Thus, ten hours make up the largest space out of twentyfour hours which can be exacted from convicted felons whose punishment consists of hard labor. Yet the slave of South Carolina, under a law professing to extend humanity to him, may be required to toil for fifteen hours within the same period. 201

Page 202 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. In the extreme south, where cotton, sugar, and rice are raised, and where the plantations are large, and many hands are employed in field work, the slaves are generally worked hard, or overwrought. At least during portions of the year they are worked from dawn of day till night; and in making sugar very often they are employed a considerable portion of the night. It is calculated that slaves will wear out, under these circumstances, in from five to seven years. The accurate calculators about how much profit may be made in the wear and tear of human flesh, estimate, that it is most economical to require twice the amount of labor during the boiling season in making sugar, in order to accomplish the labor with one set of hands. By pursuing this course they could afford to sacrifice a set of hands once in seven years; and this horrible system is practiced to a considerable extent. (See “American Slavery As It Is,” pp. 35-40.) Some testimonies here will present this subject in its true light. ” Many owners of slaves, and others who have the management of slaves, do confine them so closely at hard labor that they have not sufficient time for natural rest.” (Legislature of S.

Carolina; see 2 Brenard’s Digest, 243.) “So laborious is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning rice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in sufficient numbers, thousands and tens of thousands must have perished.” (History of South Carolina, vol. i, p. 120.) ” Is it not obvious that the way to render their situation more comfortable, is to allow them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the slave to incessant toil that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco are raised for exportation? It is proposed to hem in the blacks where they are hard worked, that they may be rendered unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. The proposed measure would be extreme cruelty to the blacks. You would doom them to hard labor.” (Hon.

202

Page 203 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. Alexander Smyth, Speech on Missouri Question, January 28, 1820.) “At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, they work both night and day, abridged of their sleep. They scarce retire to rest during the whole period.” (Travels in Louisiana, p. 81.) “The slaves are driven to the field in the morning about four o’clock. The general calculation is to get them at work by daylight. The time for breakfast is between nine and ten o’clock. This meal is sometimes eaten’ bite and work;’ others allow fifteen minutes; and this is the only rest the slave has while in the field. I have never known a case of stopping an hour in Louisiana; in Mississippi the rule is milder, though entirely subject to the will of the master. On cotton plantations, in cotton-picking time-that is, from October to Christmas-each hand has a certain quantity to pick, and is flogged if his task is not accomplished; their task is such as to keep them all the while busy.” (George W. Westgate, who lived a number of years in the southwestern states.) As to the argument from self-interest, that it is the interest of the slaveholders not to overwork the slaves, we may remark that this has two applications. When breeding slaves becomes, by choice or circumstances, the policy of slaveholders, then their self-interest leads them ordinarily to supply them with sufficient food and clothingr, and to exact only moderate labor. But when the object is merely to calculate on the profit and loss of outlay and income in the calculations of slavery, then excessive labor and waste of life form the more economical plan. On the sugar plantations it is necessary to employ about twice the amount of labor during the boiling season; hence, the labor at that season is often doubled. By pursuing this plan the planters could afford to sacrifice a set of hands every five or seven years. And this plan is frequently pursued. When the 203

Page 204 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. boiling season commences, it must be pushed without cessation, and by doubling the work, half the hands will do; and thus there is a great saving in having to purchase only half the number of hands, and also to maintain this number. Thus self-interest leads to overworking, and even killing off, by this process, multitudes of human beings. By this process of overworking in the West Indies, the slaves were hurried prematurely to their graves in great numbers. The same, though perhaps not to the same extent, occurs in the sugar plantations of the United States. The sacrifice of human life, in the sugar, cotton, and rice regions in the United States, has been very great, and the waste has been supplied from the slave-growing states of AIaryland, Virginia, and Kentucky. These have supplied the victims to replenish the grave-yards of the rice, cotton, and sugar regions of the far south. The self-interest of slave-breeders leads them to use the means of increasing the number, health, and white color of the marketable negroes, from their home stock.

And the self-interest of the raisers of cotton, sugar, and rice, is to have half the number of hands, wear them out in from five to seven years, and from this economical process save more than will buy fresh hands, after even paying the expenses of burying the worn-out slaves. It is but proper to state, that in the grain-growing states the slaves, in general, are not overworked. Perhaps in these states their labor does not exceed that of laborers in other countries. The same will apply to most of the house hands even in the far south. But there seems to be a terrible retribution of Heaven resting on the system of slavery in reference to labor. The slaves were introduced into America in order to relieve their masters from work, as well as to make them rich by the toils of the slave.

All this was forced labor-labor without 204

Page 205 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. remuneration. The slave having no interest in the labor of his own hands, will not, in general, work, except under the whip. He will work as little as he can. He becomes an eye servant.

Hence, it has come to pass, that in all the grain growing states, where mostly only a family or two of blacks are owned by a white family, the slaves not being constantly watched, they have contracted the slowest methods of work. They do as little as they can. Hence, they have, by the retributions of the injustice exercised on them, be come the most expensive laborers. And slave labor is now dearer than hired labor. Thus, its own injustice renders it profitless; and the curse of God adds to its unproductiveness. The very soil partakes of this curse. The land wears out under slave culture. The indolence of the whites caps the climax of penal sanctions, so that the land spews out its inhabitants, and drives them to new countries, because the older countries can no longer sustain the double curse resting on it. 2. The master may supply the slave with such food, both as to quantity and quality, as he may think proper, or may find convenient. In North Carolina, the legal standard of food for a slave must not be less than a quart of corn per day. In Louisiana, the standard by law is “one barrel of Indian corn-in the ear-or the equivalent thereof in rice, beans, or other grain, and a pint of salt, every month.” In South Carolina, su.fcient food is enjoined by law. What is meant by sufficient food, we learn from Hon. Robt. Turnbull, a slaveholder of South Carolina, who says, “The subsistence of the slaves consists, from March till August, ot corn ground into grists, or meal, made into what is called hominy, or baked into corn bread. The other six months they are fed upon the sweet potato. Meat, when given, is only by way of indulgence or favor.” 18 205

Page 206 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. Thomas S. Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a slaveholder, in his address before the Georgia presbytery in 1833, says, “The quantity allowed by custom is a peck of corn a’Week.” The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, May 30, 1788, says, “A single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice, is the ordinary quantity of provision for a hard-working slave; to which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though rarely, added.” The slaves, in genera], are allowed no meat. This appears from the fact, that in North Carolina and Louisiana, the only states which regulate the slave rations by law, the legal ration contains no meat. The general allowance on plantations is corn, or meal, and salt merely. To this there are, doubtless, many exceptions; yet, the number of slaveholders who furnish meat for their field hands is small, compared with those who do not. The house slaves generally get meat every day-the offal meat of their master’s tables. Vegetables form generally no part of the slave’s allowance. The sole food of the majority is corn, at every meal, from day to day, and week to week. In South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, the sweet potato is substituted for corn a part of the year.

The quantity of food generally allowed to a full-grown field hand, is a peck of corn a week, or a fraction over a quart and a gill per day. The legal ration of North Carolina is less-in Louisiana it is more. Frequently a small quantity of meat is added; but this is not the general practice with field hands. We may add, in the season of pumpkins and other vegetables, the slaves on small plantations are, to some extent, furnished with these articles. Besides, a quart of southern corn weighs about five ounces less than a quart of northern corn; so that this is another item of importance to show the scanty legal supply for the food of the slave. The daily rations of the United States soldiers is one 206

Page 207 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. pound and a quarter of beef, one pound and three-sixteenths of bread, and at the rate of eight quarts of beans, eight pounds of sugar, four pounds of coffee, two quarts of salt, four pounds of candles, and four pounds of soap, to every hundred rations. In New Hampshire state prison, one and a quarter pounds of meal and fourteen ounces of beef for breakfast and dinner, form the standard, and the supper is without stint. A similar provision is made in the other penitentiaries in the United States and elsewhere. In comparing the statistics of rations, we find the average daily ration, throughout this country and Europe, exceeds the usual slave’s allowance at least a pound a day.

Besides, about one-third the ration of convicts, soldiers, and sailors is mReat, generally beef; whereas the allowance of the mass of the slaves is corn only, or less substantial food. We know that the laws of several states, as South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, etc., make it penal to deprive the slave of suitable food and clothing. But, as the slave is entirely under the control of his master, is unprovided with a protector, and as he can not be a witness against his master or make complaint against him, the laws have little or no force. We will here produce the testimony of the Rev. Thomas S. Clay, of Georgia, in his “Detail of a plan for the moral improvement of negroes on plantations, read before the Georgia presbytery,” in 1833, and printed at the request of the presbytery. In regard to the supply of food, Mr. Clay says: “From various causes, this is often not adequate to the support of a laboriny man. The quantity allowed by custom is a peck of corn per week, and if it be sound flint corn, this is sufficient to sustain health and strength under moderate labor. But there is often a defect here; the quantity is then insufficient; and who should be astonished, if the negro take from the field or corn-house the supply necessary for his craving appetite, and then justifies his act, 207

Page 208 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. and denies that it is stealing? It is a common statement made by intelligent negroes, that without the aid of their own gardens, poultry-house, and cornfields, their allowance would not hold out. Should the quality of the corn be poor, let them have their food by weight, giving not less than fourteen pounds per week of corn. The allowance should, on no occasion, be given on the Sabbath; besides being a violation of God’s law, it interferes with attendance at church. It should be given on stated days; the same day every week. Time should be allowed the negroes for receiving their provisions, neither should they be delayed, after a hard day’s work, till late at night.” (See Quarterly Antislavery Magazine for October, 1835, p. 98.) So the food is “often not adequate to the support of a laboring man.” It is “often insufficient,” in Georgia, and testimony to the same amount can be adduced in reference to every slave state. Hence, the slave is taught and compelled to steal; and the thefts of slaves, so notorious in all ages, are chargeable on the system of slavery, and not on the slaves themselves. It may be observed, however, that in the northern slave states, as Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, the slaves generally receive sufficient food. But this is a result arising from other causes than any provision of slavery.

It is in spite of slavery. Principles and influences in these states are at work, which are undermining the system in spite of its injustice and its privations. Indeed, every-where, to a greater or less extent, the workings of conscience, and of sound principles, offer an antagonism to slavery which ultimately, by God’s blessing, will overthrow it. 3. The clothing of the slaves by day, and their covering by night, are inadequate either for comfort or decency, in any or most of the slaveholding states.

In South Carolina and Georgia a sufficiency of clothing is enjoined by statute. But that sufficiency is mostly 208

Page 209 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. determined by usage; and to this we must have recourse, in order to ascertain in what this sufficiency consists. In Louisiana, the law enjoined on the owner to give the slave “one linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and woolen great-coat and pantaloons for the winter.” (Stroud, p. 31.) Mr. Turnbull, of South Carolina, a slaveholder, thus describes the clothing of slaves: “It consists of a winter and a summer suit; the former a jacket, waistcoat, and overalls of Welsh plains, and the latter of osnaburg or homespun, or other substitutes. They have shoes, hats, and handkerchiefs, and other little articles, such as tobacco, pipes, rum, etc. Their dwellings consist of good clay cabins, with clay chimneys.” Mr. Hawley, a Baptist minister, who resided fourteen years in North and South Carolina, describes the customary clothing of slaves in these states as follows: “The rule where slaves are hired out, is two suits of clothes per year, one pair of shoes, and one blanket; but as it relates to the great body of the slaves, this can not be called a general rule. On many plantations the children, under ten or twelve years old, go entirely naked, or, if clothed at all, they have nothing more than a shirt. The cloth is of the coarsest kind, far from being durable or warm; and their shoes frequently come to pieces in a few weeks. I have never known any provision made or time allowed for the washing of clothes. If they wish to washl, as they have generally but one suit, they go, after their day’s toil, to some stream, build a fire, pull off their clothes and wash them in the stream, and dry them by the fire; and in some instances they wear their clothes till they are worn off, without washing. I have never known an instance of a slaveholder furnishing his slaves with stockings or mittens.” (See American Slavery, p. 95.) The house servants generally, and the greater number of 18* 209 ok

Page 210 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. slaves in the grain-growing states, have clothing furnished them in amount and quality approaching to comfort, but with little reference to decency. Yet some have both comfortable and decent clothes. It is otherwise with the field hands and the children, both male and female, whose nakedness is shamelessly exposed, at the expense both of modesty and decorum; while at the same time, in the case of the field hands, much suffering is the result of their being poorly clad. Rev. T. S. Clay, whom we have quoted in reference to the food of slaves, declares as follows in regard to their clothing: “The winter clothes should be given in Novnember, and those for summer in April or May. This is often neglected; and consequently the improvident-of whom the number is very great-suffer much. And however well a negro may endure the cold when at work, or sitting by his fireside, the want of warm clothing would be a good reason for not attending church.” We must ascribe the inadequate clothing of the slaves, whenever it exists at the expense of comfort and decency, to the system of slavery. Wherever either comfort or decency of clothing exist, slavery has not furnished this. The philanthropy and Christian principles of conscientious masters have furnished this, in contravention to the spirit and the practice of true slavery; or the exertions of slaves themselves, by night work and Sabbath work, and the use of any hours of recreation allowed them, in spite of the iron laws of slavery, have provided the Sunday dresses, and the every-day comforts of clothing. In the system of slavery there is no provision for either the comforts or decencies of life. Interest will generally lead the master to provide clothing, so as to preserve the health and vigor of the slave in most cases. Farther than this, slavery provides not. The preservation and profitable use of property, is all that slavery knows, acknowledges, or provides for; and this is the sum total, and no more, of the aggregate code of 210

Page 211 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. slavery. Where comfort and decency of clothing exist, the extra industry of the slave himself, or the humanity of the master, has made the provision, without the least in debtedness to slavery, except a mere tolerance, by way of winking at, in consequence of which the public opinion formed by a better system than slavery, has prevented the decently and comfortably-clothed slave to wear his extra clothing, without being divested of it by the same unjust system which robs him of himself, enslaves his children as soon as they are born, separates them from his bosom when they are grown up, and banishes for ever from his association his wife and family. 4. The dwellings of the slaves are such as to prevent family comfort, and to prevent the proper exercise of proper family regulations. The negro quarters, the name given to the wretched habitations of the slaves, conveys, in general, the idea of discomfort, poverty, and misery. Mr. Turnbull says, that in South Carolina “the slaves live in clay cabins.” In general they are small houses, of from ten to twelve feet square, with earthen or puncheon floors, seldom boards; mostly without windows, or furniture, and utterly destitute of comfort or convenience. There is generally only one apartment for all purposes. The Rev. James O’Kelly, in his Essay on Slavery, in 1789, p. 7, thus describes the dwellings of slaves in Virginia at that time: “The families are miserably crowded together in dirty pens, without any real family comfort, even where the husband and wife dwell together under one master. Their conception and birth-too commonly-are not as private as that of brutes in the forest! A slave hath not power to do those duties incumbent on him toward his family, nor the satisfaction of being with them in sickness and distress.” In regard to these dwellings, Rev. T. S. Clay says: “Too 211 -.:

Page 212 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. many individuals are crowded into one house, and the proper separation of apartments can not be observed.” He then recommends “such an arrangement, by means of par titions, as to furnish separate apartments for the larger boys and girls.” Such arrangements are indispensable to the comforts and decencies of civilized life, and to the purity of Christian morals. But such accommodations would be too expensive for the master, whose gains, by this expenditure, would be lessened.

Besides, it would be one of those means calculated to subvert slavery.

Slaves, by such treatment, would become refined and self-respecting men and women. And such an improvement would be a ruinous hit against slavery.

We know that in some places the accommodations of houses for the slaves have been improved. But slavery has not done it. This alone is a striking fact in the degradation and misery produced by slavery. Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, speaks thus in reference to his own state: “When they return to their miserable huts at night, they find not there the means of comfortable rest, but on the cold ground they must lie, without covering, and shiver while they slumber.” 5. The provision for sick, infirm, and aged slaves, is far from being either humane or adequate to the objects to be relieved. There is an act of Georgia, of December 12, 1815, which declares: “It shall be the duty of the inferior courts of tre several counties, on receiving information on oath of any infirm slave or slaves being in a suffering situation, from the neglect of the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, to make particular inquiries into the situation of such slave or slaves, and to render such relief as they, in their discretion, may think proper.” The relief here is confined to infrn?i slaves. But the relief is so far-fetched, it can rarely be 212

Page 213 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. reached. 1. Information must be given on oath to the inferior judges. 2. This must be the oath of a white man, who by the act must incur the enmity of a neighbor by making such complaint.

3. Then these inferior judges may “render such relief as they, in their discretion, may think proper.” 4. If they decide upon relief, it must be sued for at another court, for they can not order an execution on their own judgment. Thus, such relief may come when it is too late to benefit the poor slave to any extent; or it may never come. This may be considered as a fair specimen of the relief provided for suffering slaves, by the slave laws. The late Dr. Channing, of Boston, who once resided in Virginia, states as follows, in his work on slavery, p. 62, first edition: “I can not forget my feelings on visiting a hospital belonging to the plantation of a gentleman highly esteemed for his virtues, and whose manners and conver sation expressed much benevolence and conscientiousness. When I entered with him the hospital, the first object on which my eye fell was a young woman, very ill, probably approaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her head rested on something like a pillow, but her body and limbs were extended on the hard boards. The owner, I doubt not, had, at least, as much kindness as myself; but he was so used to see the slaves living without common comforts, that the idea of unkindness, in the present instance, did not enter his mind.” The following is from Sarah Ai. Grimke, of South Carolina: “When the Ladies’

Benevolent Society, in Charleston, South Carolina, of which I was a visiting commissioner, first went into operation, we were applied to for the relief of several aged colored persons. One case I particularly remember, of an aged woman who was dreadfully burned from having fallen into the fire; she was living with some free blacks, who had taken her in out of compassion. On inquiry, we found that nearly all the colored persons who 213

Page 214 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. had solicited aid, were slaves, who, being no longer able to work for their owners, were thus inhumanly cast out in their sickness and old age, and must have perished, but for the kindness of their friends.” The pecuniary interests of the slaveholder will have their force, in reference to the sick who are expected to recover. And yet the accurate calculation of profit and loss may act, as a distinguished man is reported to have done, who owned about three hundred slaves, who, “after employing a physician among them for some time, ceased to do so, alleging as the reason, that it was cheaper to lose a few negroes every year, than to pay a physician.” Mr. George A. Avery, elder of a Presbyterian church, New York, who resided some years in Virginia, writes as follows: “The manner of treating the sick slaves, and especially in chronic cases, was, to my mind, peculiarly revolting. My opportunities for observation in this department were better than in, perhaps, any other, as the friend under whose direction I commenced my medical studies, enjoyed a high reputation as a surgeon. I rode considerably with him in practice, and assisted in the surgical operations and dressings from time to time.

In confirmed cases of disease, it was common for the master to place the subject under the care of a physician or surgeon, at whose expense the patient should be kept; and if death ensued to the patient, or the disease was not cured, no compensation was to be made; but if cured, a bonus of one, two, or three hundred dollars was to be given. No provision was made against the barbarity or neglect of the physician. I have seen fifteen or twenty of these helpless sufferers crowded together, in the true spirit of slaveholding inhumanity, like the brutes that perish, and driven, from time to time, like brutes, into a common yard, where they had to suffer any and every operation and experiment which interest, caprice, or profes 214

Page 215 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. sional curiosity might prompt, unrestrained by law, public sentiment, or the claims of common humanity.” Besides, in the process of acclimation, those transferred from the northern to the southern slave states, suffer much by disease and death. And in advertisements we find the venders very careful to state acclimation as an important item in the value of slaves. Some calculate that about twentyfive per cent. lose their lives when brought from Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and the hill countries, into the sugar plantations and the rice swamps. Certain it is, that the loss of life, by this change, falls little short of the mortality common to the acclimation of the Afiricans in America, when the slavetrade was in full operation; if, indeed, it is not now as extensively carried on as ever in reference to the South American countries, and smuggling into portions of the United States. 6. The privations endured by slaves, in reference to labor, food, clothing, dwellings. and treatment when sick, show clearly the degrading and sinful character of the system. The master prescribes the time and amount of labor which the slave must render. Then he fixes on the quantity and quality of the food which he supplies. The clothing, by day and night, is doled out with scanty stinting to the slave. His habitation, no matter how uncomfortable, which his master supplies, must be received with submission. It will not, then, be marvelous, that the system of disfranchise which treats the slave in this manner, would neglect him when he can be no longer profitable, or when sickness invades him. Parents enjoying freedom do not consider themselves safe, in civilized society, when they deliver their property to their children, and depend on them afterward for supplies. The history of the world shows what human nature is on this matter; namely, it can not be trusted. And is the system of slavery guiltless in this respect? No such thing. In food, clothing, and habitation, and exacting labor, it will do 215

Page 216 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. wrong. It always has done wrong. It now does wrong. It can not do otherwise than wrong. Its sin remaineth, and will remain. Its sin is a part of itself in this respect. In this are manifested some of the most glaring sins condemned in the Bible. This not only withholds wages, but it withholds food itself, both in quantity and quality. It strips the poor, and makes them go naked, without due garments by day or covering by night. Therefore, the system is sinful; or if it be sinful to make people hungry and naked, by taking their own hard-earned food and clothing from them, slavery is chargeable with sin. Dr. Channing, p. 163, well portrays slavery when he says, in reference to the facts which we now mention: “Facts of this kind, which make no noise, which escape or mislead a casual observer, help to show the character of slavery more than occasional excesses of cruelty, though these must be frequent.

They show how deceptive are the appearances of good connected with it; and how much may be suffered under the manifestation of much kindness. It is, in fact, next to impossible to estimate precisely the evils of slavery.

The slave writes no books, and the slaveholder is too inured to the system, and too much interested in it, to be able to comprehend it.

Perhaps the laws of the slave states are the most unexceptionable witnesses which we can obtain from that quarter, and the barbarity of these is decisive testimony against an institution which requires such means for its support.” 7. The privations of slaves, in reference to food, clothing, dwellings, sickness, and labor, form one very striking feature of the moral character of slavery. The spirit and the practice of the system will appear fully in considering these items. Every thing saved in expenditure, as well as produced by skill and labors go to make up the profits or gain of slavery. Hence the food, in quantity, quality, and mode of preparation, is provided on the cheapest plan, in order to 216

Page 217 view page image

GENERAL PRIVATIONS OF SLAVES. save expense. The clothing, too, in cheapness, is a matter of importance. The dwellings are also most miserable, costing next to nothing, in construction, furniture, repairs, without the appurtenances belonging to decency, comfort, or morals. And then the labor is to be as great as possible, and laid out on the most profitable productions. Now, among the declarations of Scripture, none are more pointed in denunciation, than those hich refer to the sin of even refusing to give clothing to the naked, food to the hungry, attendance to the sick, and the like. But slavery does more: it takes from the slave the products of his labor and toil, which would clothe, feed, and nurse him, and then clothes him with rags, feeds him on offals and husks, and neglects him in his distress. To refuse to clothe and feed those who have made themselves poor, even by their sins or want of economy, is a crying sin before God. But to make persons poor, in taking the grain out of their granaries, takingff the clothes out of their wardrobe, and then replacing them only in part with the refuse and the vile surplus of our rich stores, becomes peculiarly offensive to God. Such are the sins of slavery ever since it began, even to this day. And such it must ever remain, till God will visit it with the plague of total destruction, because it has despised the poor, it has taken the only garment of the naked from him, and, with harpy snatch, has seized and carried their own food from the table of the hungry, starving poor. The vengeance of God will follow it down to total destruction. 19 217

Page 218 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. CHAPTER III. CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. 1. The punishments and treatment of slaves amount to eruelties or inhumanity. The truth of this statement will appear from the following considerations. The law of the slave states assails the persons of the slaves by depriving them of trial by jury. It assails their consciences by forbidding them to assemble for worship, unless their oppressors are present. It assails their characters, by branding them as liars-by denying them their oath in law. The law exposes their modesty, by leaving their masters to clothe or let them go naked, as he pleases. The law exposes their health, by leaving him to feed or starve them; to work them, wet or dry, with or without sleep; to lodge them with or without covering, as he thinks proper. It robs them of marriage relations, parental authority, and filial obligations. In short, the laws not only refuse to protect the slaves, but they rob them of their sacred, inalienable rights. The law of slavery deprives man of his right to himself, of his right to his body, his right to improve his mind, to worship God according to conscience, his right to receive and enjoy what he earns, his right to live with his wife and children, his right to better his condition, his right to eat when he is hungry, to rest when he is tired, to sleep when he needs it, to cover his nakedness with clothing. It males the slave a prisoner for life on the plantation, except when his master pleases to let him out with a pass, or sells him, and transfers him in irons to another place. It authorizes human merchants to traverse the country, buying up men, women, and children-chaining them in coffles, and driving them forever from their relatives; it sets them on the auction table to be handled, scrutinized, knocked off to the 218

Page 219 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. highest bidder; it proclaims they shall not have their liberty, and should their masters set them free, the law seizes them and again reduces them to slavery. Besides, the slave laws have attached the following penal ties to the following acts of slaves: if more than seven slaves are found together in any road, without a white person, twenty lashes apiece; for visiting a plantation without a written pass, ten lashes; for letting loose a boat from where it is made fast, thirtynine lashes, for the first offense, and for the second such slave “shall have cut off from his head one ear;” for keeping or carrying a club, thirtynine lashes; for having any article for sale, without a ticket from his master, ten lashes; for traveling in any other than the most usual road, when going alone to any place, forty lashes; for being found in another person’s negro quarters, forty lashes; for hunting with dogs, in the woods, thirty lashes; for being on horseback without the written permission of his master, twentyfive lashes; for riding or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in the daytime, 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 not to render him unfit for labor. Laws similar to these exist throughout the slave code.

Extracts to fill a volume could be made similar to the above. In many cases the white man may kill the slave with perfect impunity, as we have shown; so that the slave has little or no protection from the few laws made for that purpose. For instance, if a female raise her hand against the human brute who attempts to violate her chastity, she shall, saith the law, suffer death. The property of the master is much more sacred than the person of the slave. Two laws of Louisiana, passed in 1819, prove this.

The one attaches a penalty, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment, not exceeding two tears, to the crime of “cutting or breaking any iron chain or 219 Mkr

Page 220 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. collar” which any master may have used to prevent the running away of the slave. The other law inflicts a penalty, “not exceeding five hundred dollars,” to “willfully cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye, cruelly burning, or depriving any slave of any limb.”

These laws reveal the heart of the slave system; while it shows the relative protection afforded to the person of the slave, compared to the property of the master. He who cuts out the tongue, tears out the eyes, shoots off the arms, or burns off the feet of a slave, over a slow fire, can not legally be fined more than five hundred dollars. But if he should, in pity, loose a chain from his galled neck, he may be fined in one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for two years; and this, too, not for stealing the slave, or enticing or advising him to leave his master, but merely to relieve, in some degree, the misery of the slave! Take the following illustrations of the indifference to the torments of slaves, compared with zeal to compensate the master if the slave is lessened in value by the injury inflicted by another. The first is a law of South Carolina, which provides that if a slave engaged in his owner’s service be attacked by a person, “not having sufficient cause for so doing,” and if the slave shall be maimed or disabled by him, so that the owner suffers loss from the inability of the slave to labor, the person maiming the slave shall pay for his lost time, and the charges for the cure of the slave. There the maimed slave, crippled or otherwise injured, is passed over in silence, and the act toward him is no criminal act; but tire pecuniary loss of the master is provided for, with no provision to remunerate the cruelly-treated slave. (See 2 Brenard’s Digest, 231, 2.) A similar law exists in Louisiana, which contains an additional provision for the benefit of the master. It ordains that “if the maimed and disabled slave be forever rendered unable to work,” the person maiming him shall pay the 220 l~

Page 221 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and shall also take the slave and maintain him during life. Thus the slave is put into the hands of his tormentor! What else than cruel treatment can be expected during life for the maimed slave? The following judicial decision will illustrate this point. It is in the case of Jourdon vs. Patton, (5 Martin’s Louisiana Reports, p. 615; Wheeler, pp. 249, 250.) A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of his only eye, and thus rendered useless, on account of which the defendant is required by the court to pay the full value of the slave. The case, by appeal, went up to the Supreme Court. Judge Mathews, in his decision, said, that “when the defendant had paid the sum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,” adding, that “the judgment making full compensation to the owner operates change of property.” He then adds: “The principle of humanity which would lead us to suppose that the mistress whom lhe had long served, would treat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant to whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CAN NOT BE TAKEN

INTO CONSIDERATION, in deciding this case.” The full compensation to the mistress for the loss of the services of her slave is worthy of all consideration; but the condition of the slave during life, blind and helpless, is worthy of no consideration! Before we proceed further, we adduce a decision or two to show, that the slave has little protection from law. The following is the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in the case of the State vs. Cheatwood, (2 Hill’s Reports, p.

459; see Wheeler, p. 243.) “The criminal offense of assault and battery can not, at common law, be committed on the person of the slave. For, notwithstanding for some purposes a slave is regarded in law as a person, yet generally he is a mere chlattel personal, and his right of personal protection belongs to his master, who can maintain an action of trespass for the battery of his slave. There 19* 221

Page 222 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. can, therefore, be no offense against the state for a mere beating of the slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, as an attempt to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby broken; for a slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of being within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and is not in that character entitled to her protection.” In the case of State vs. Mann, 1829, (Devereux’s North Carolina Reports, p. 263,) the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided that a master who shot at a female slave and wounded her, because she got loose from him when he was flogging her, and started to run from him, had violated no law, and could not be indicted.

(See Wheeler, p. 244.) Thus the slave laws give the master a right to flog, wound, and beat a slave when he pleases. And it has been decided by the highest courts of the slave states generally, that assault and battery upon a slave is not indictable as a criminal offense. 2. To show that American slavery has always had a uniform character of cruelty inflicted on the slaves, we will adduce the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses for more than a hundred years. This evidence will be of a general character, and principally from slaveholders. Mr. Whitfield, in 1739, declares thus, concerning slavery in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia: “Sure I am, it is sinful to use them as bad, nay, worse, than if they were brutes; and whatever particular exceptions there may be-as I would charitably hope there are some-I fear the generality of you who own negroes are liable to such a charge; not to mention what numbers have been given up to the inhuman usage of cruel taskmasters, who, by their unrelenting scourges, have plowed their backs and made long furrows, and at length brought them to their grave. The blood of them, spilt for these 222 I

Page 223 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. many years, in your respective provinces, will ascend up to heaven against you.” John Woolman, a Quaker, in 1757, says: “The correction ensuing on their disobedience to overseers, or slothfulness in business, is often very severe, and sometimes desperate.”

Mr. Pinckney, of Maryland, in the house of delegates, in 1789, calls slavery “a speaking picture of abominable oppression.” The Rev. James O’Kelly, in his “Essay on Negro Slavery,” published in Philadelphia, in 1789, and who is an unexceptionable witness, declares as follows: “In a word, slavery is insufferable in its nature. A slave is looked on as the property of the master, who is his own legislator, as touching the slave, to curse, abuse, drive rigorously, sell, change, give, etc. Yes, beat without restriction; mark, brand, and castrate him; and even when life itself is taken away, it is but very little regarded. Perhaps there may be a small stir if one is murdered, but it is nothing but a sham inquisition!

His wife and children-if slaves-are all salable property, so that the slave can not say that even his life is his own. They see their wives and children in suffering circumstances, but have no way to relieve them! They see their bleeding backs, but dare not say,‘Why is this abuse?’ They are torn from each other to satisfy debts, and to be parted among the favored legatees. This is tolerated by the sons of liberty, who risked their lives to deliver themselves from political bondage.” (Pp. 7, 8.) Again, p. 9, our witness says: “These poor outcasts of men have no kind law to protect them from abuse of every kind, or to allow them some small pittance for a life of hard labor. Do not call a few rags and coarse bread, hire. Yea, life itself is not protected as it should be. A white man’s character is regarded more than the life of a slave! This is but a very short narrative of the miserable consequences of slavery.” 223 E  ,- IIII

Page 224 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. Mr. Rice, in the Convention of Kentucky, in 1790, said: “The master may, and often does, inflict upon him all the severity of punishment the human body is capable of bearing.” President Edwards, the younger, in a sermon preached in 1791, before “The Connecticut Society for the Promotion of Freedom, and for the Relief of Persons unlawfully holden in Bondage,” declares as follows, p. 6, fourth edition: “They are constantly under the watchful eye of overseers and negrodrivers, more tyrannical and cruel than even their masters themselves. From these drivers, for every imagined, as well as real neglect or want of exertion, they receive the lash, the smack of which is all day long in the ears of those who are on the plantation or in the vicinity; and it is used with such dexterity and severity, as not only to lacerate the skin, but to tear out small portions of the flesh at almost every stroke. This is the general treatment of the slaves. But many individuals suffer still more severely. Many are knocked down; some have their eyes beaten out; some have an arm or a leg broken or chopped off; and many, for a small, or for no crime at all, have been beaten to death, merely to gratify the fury of an enraged master or overseer.” Major Stoddard, who took possession of Louisiana in behalf of the United States, in 1804, in his sketches of Louisiana, p. 332, says: “The feelings of humanity are outraged-the most odious tyranny is exercised in a land of freedom, and hunger and nakedness prevail amidst plenty. Cruel and even unusual punishments are daily inflicted on these wretched creatures, enfeebled with labor, hunger, and the lash. The scenes of misery and distress constantly witnessed along the coast of the Delta, the wounds and lacerations occasioned by demoralized masters and overseers, torture the feelings of the passing stranger, and wring blood from the heart.” 224 I

Page 225 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. The seventh report of the American Colonization Society, 1824, declares: “Excepting only the horrible system of the WAVest India Islands, we have never heard of slavery in any country, ancient or modern, Pagan, Mohammedan, or Christian, so terrible in its character as the slavery which nowv exists in these United States.” The following is the testimony of the Gradual Emanci pation Society of North Carolina: “In the eastern part of the state the slaves considerably outnumber the free popu lation. Their situation is there wretched beyond descrip tion.

Impoverished by the mismanagement which we have already attempted to describe, the master, unable to support his own grandeur and maintain his slaves, puts the unfor tunate wretches upon short allowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a great part of them go halfnaked and half-starved much of the time. Generally throughout the state, the African is an abused, a monstrously-outraged creature.” (See Minutes of the American Convention, convened in Baltimore, October 25, 1826; see, also, Weld’s American Slavery, p. 60.) The Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, in 1824 declared: “Many poor slaves are stripped naked, stretched and tied across barrels, or large bags, and tortured with the lash during hozirs, and even whole days, till their flesh is iva?y7led to the very bones. Others are stripped and hung up by the arms, their feet are tied together, and the end of a heavy piece of timber is put between their legs in order to stretch their bodies, and so prepare them for the torturing lash-and in this situation they are often whipped till their bodies are covered with blood and manyled fesh-and, in order to add the greatest keenness to their sufferings, their wounds are washed with liquid salt! And some of the miserable creatures are permitted to hang in that position till they actually expire; some die under the lash, others linger about for a time, and at length die of their 225

Page 226 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. wounds, and many survive, and endure again similar torture. These bloody scenes are constantly exhibiting in every slaveholding country-thousands of whips are every day stained in African blood! Even the poor females are not permitted to escape these shocking cruelties.” (Rankin’s Letters, p. o2, fifth edition.) “The slave, to remain a slave, must be made sensible that there is no appeal from his master; that his person is in no instance usurped, but is conferred by the laws of man, at least, if not by the law of God. The danger would be great, indeed, if the tribunals of justice should be called on to graduate the punishment appropriate to every temper and dereliction of menial duty.

No man can anticipate the many and aggravated provocations of the master, which the slave would be constantly stimulated, by his own passions or the instigation of others, to give; or the consequent wrath of the master, prompting him to bloody vengeance, upon the turbulent traitor-a vengeance generally practiced with impunity, by reason of its privacy.” (Judge Ruffin, of the Supreme Court of North Carolina; see Wheeler, p. 247.) “It must be confessed, that, although the treatment of our slaves is, in the general, as mild and humane as it can be, it must always happen, that there will be found hundreds of individuals, who, owing either to the natural ferocity of their dispositions, or to the effects of intemperance, will be guilty of cruelty and barbarity toward their slaves, which is almost intolerable, and at which humanity revolts.” (Speech of Mr. Moore, of Virginia, January 15, 1832.) “Let any man of spirit and feeling, for a moment, cast his thoughts over this land of slavery-think of the nakedness of some, the hungry yearnings of others, the flowing tears and heaving sighs of parting relations, the wailings and woe, the bloody cut of the keen lash, and the frighktful 226

Page 227 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. scream that rends the very skies-and all this to gratify ambition, lust, pride, avarice, vanity, and other depraved feelings of the human heart…. THE WORST IS NOT GENERALLY KNOWN. Were all the miseries, the horrors of slavery, to burst at once into view, a peal of sevenfold thunder could scarce strike greater alarm.” (Address of B.

Swain, of North Carolina, in 1830.) “In almost the last conversation I had with you before I left Cincinnati, I promised to give you some account of some scenes of atrocious cruelty toward slaves, which I witnessed while I lived at the south. I almost regret having made the promise, for not only are they so atrocious that you will with difficulty believe them, but I also fear that they will have the effect of driving you into that abolitionism, upon the borders of which you have been so long hesitating.

The people of the north are ignorant of the horrors of slavery-of the atrocities which it commits upon the unprotected slave…. “I do not know that any thing could be gained by particularizing the scenes of horrible barbarity, which fell under my observation during my short residence in one of the wealthiest, most intelligent, and most moral parts of Georgia.

Their number and atrocity are such, that I am confident they would gain credit with none but abolitionists. Every thing will be conveyed in the remark, that in a state of society calculated to foster the worst passions of our nature, the slave derives no protection either from law or public opinion, and that ALL the cruelties which the Russians are reported to have acted toward the Poles, after their late subjugation, ARE SCENES OF

EVERY-DAY OCCURRENCE in the southern states. This statement, incredible as it may seem, falls short, very far short of the truth.” (Rev. J. C.

Finley’s letter to Mr. Mahan.) “Slavery is the parent of more suffering than has flowed from any one source since the date of its existence. Such 227

Page 228 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. sufferings too! sufferings inconceivable and innumerableunmingled wretchedness, from the ties of nature rudely broken and destroyed, the acutest bodily tortures, groans, tears, and blood-lying forever in weariness and painfulness, in watchings, in hunger and in thirst, in cold and nakedness. “Brethren of the north, be not deceived.

These sufferings still exist; and despite the efforts of their cruel authors to hush them down, and confine them within the precincts of their own plantations, they will, ever and anon, struggle up and reach the ear of humanity.” (Mr. Thome’s Speech at New York, May, 1834.) “This system licenses and produces great cruelty. Mangling,, imprisonment, starvation, every species of torture, may be inflicted upon him, [the slave,] and he has no redress. There are now in our whole land two millions of human beings, exposed, defenseless, to every insult, and every injury short of maiming or death, which their fellowmen may choose to inflict. They suffer all that can be inflicted by wanton caprice, by grasping avarice, by brutal lust, by malignant spite, and by insane anger. Their happiness is the sport of every whim, and the prey of every passion that may, occasionally or habitually, infest the master’s bosom. If we could calculate the amount of woe endured by ill-treated slaves, it would overwhelm every compassionate heart-it would move even the obdurate to sympathy. There is also a vast sum of suffering inflicted upon the slave by humane masters, as a punishment. for that idleness and misconduct which slavery naturally produces. Brutal stripes, and all the varied kinds of personal indignities, are not the only species of cruelty which slavery licenses.” (Synod of Kentucky.) “Place yourself in imagination, for a moment, in their condition. With heavy yalli??g chains, riveted upon your person; halfnaked, half-starved; your back lacerated with 228

Page 229 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. the’knotted whip;’ traveling to a region where your condition through time wuill be second only to the wretched creatures in hell. This depicting is not visionary. Would to God that it was!”

(Marysville Inltelligencer, Tenn., October 4, 1835.) 3. We will now present some specimens of whipping and flogging, from which it will be seen that the practice conforms to the laws which authorize the practice.

The acts of assemblies usually denominate the corrections of the slave “corporeal punishment, not extending to life or limb;” or, which is the same, any torture on the body of a slave which can be practiced without producing death or dismemberment. The punishment of universal prevalence is whipping, which consists of “lashes on the bare back, well laid on.”

The lashes are inflicted with a cow-skin, cart-whip, or any such instrument. A cloud of witnesses can be adduced to prove that the slaves are whipped with such inhuman severity as to lacerate and mangle the flesh in a most shocking manner, leaving permanent scars and ridges. The advertisements describing the scars on their bodies, made by the whip, abound in all the southern papers. Out of twentyfive advertisements, now before us, taken from the southern papers-six of them in 1837, and nineteen in 1838-we have specimens of the effect of the whip. Out of these twentyfive, we select the expressions of only a few, that the reader may have the very words of the slaveholders themselves. “Martha, seventeen or eighteen years of age, has numerous scars of the whip on her back.” “Siby, very much scarred about the neck and ears by whipping.” “A mulatto boy, having larye marks of the whzil) on his shoulders and other parts of his body.” “Tom is mach marked with the whip.” “His back shows lasting impressions of the whip, and leaves no doubt of his being a slave.” These are mere samples of thousands of similar 20 229 .i

Page 230 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. ones showing the commonness of inhuman whippings in the slave states. Such is the testimony of slaveholders themselves, voluntarily certifying to the outrages which their own hands have committed upon defenseless and innocent men and women. When they thus testify against themselves, they are under no temptation to exaggerate.

And this is so common in the south that it attracts no attention. “The great mass of the slaves are under drivers and overseers. I never saw an overseer without a whip; the whip usually carried is a short loaded stock, with a heavy lash from five to six feet long. When they whip a slave they make him pull off his shirt, if he has one, then make him lie down on his face, and taking their stand at the length of the lash, they inflict the punishment. Whippings are so universal that a negro that has not been whipped is talked of in all the region as a wonder. By whipping I do not mean a few lashes across the shoulders, but a set flogging, and generally lying down. “On sugar plantations generally, and on some cotton plantations, they have negrodrivers, who are in such a degree responsible for their gang, that if they are at fault, the driver is whipped. The result is, the gang are constantly driven by him to the extent of the influence of the lash; and it is uniformly the case that gangs dread a negrodriver more than a white overseer. “I spent a winter on widow Calvert’s plantation, near Rodney, Mississippi, but was not in a situation to see extraordinary punishments. Bellows, the overseer, for a trifling offense, took one of the slaves, stripped him, and with - piece of burning wood applied to his posteriors, burned hin cruelly; while the poor wretch screamed in the greatest agony. The principal preparation for punishment that Bellows had, was single handcuffs, made of iron, with chains, by which the offender could be chained to four stakes on the ground. These are very common in all the lower country. ”3 0

Page 231 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. I noticed one slave on widow Calvert’s plantation, who was whipped from twentyfive to fifty lashes every fortnight during the whole winter. The expression’whipped to death,’ as applied to slaves, is common at the south. “Several years ago I was going below New Orleans, in what is called the Plaquemine country, and a planter sent down in my boat a runaway he had found in New Orleans, to his plantation at Orange Five Points. As we came near the Points he told me, with deep feeling, that he expected to be whipped almost to death: pointing to a grave-yard, hle said,‘There lie five who were whipped to death.’ Overseers generally keep some of the women on the plantation; I scarce know an exception to this. Indeed, their intercourse with them is very promiscuous; they show them not much, if any, favor. Masters frequently follow the example of their overseers in this thing.” (George W. Westgate, who lived several years in the southwestern states.) “One slave, who was under my care, was whipped, I think one hundred lashes, for getting a small handful of wood from his master’s yard without leave. I heard an overseer boasting to his master that he gave one of the boys seventy lashes, for not doing a job of work just as he thought it ought to be done. The owner of the slave appeared to be pleased that the overseer had been so faithful. The apology they make for whipping so cruelly is, that it is to fiighten the rest of the gang. The masters say, that what we call an ordinary flogging will not subdue the slaves; hence, the most cruel and barbarous scourgings ever witnessed by man are daily and hourly inflicted upon the naked bodies of these miserable bondmen; not by masters and negrodrivers only, but by the constables in the common markets and jailers in their yards. “It is very common for masters to say to the overseers or drivers,’ Put it on to them,”Don’t spare that fellow,”Give 231

Page 232 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. that scoundrel one hundred lashes,’ etc. Whipping the women when in delicate circumstances, as they sometimes do, without any regard to their entreaties or the entreaties of their nearest friends, is truly barbarous. If negroes could testify, they would tell you of instances of women being whipped till they have miscarried at the whipping-post. I heard of such things at the south; they are undoubtedly facts. Children are whipped unmercifully for the smallest offenses, and that before their mothers. A large proportion of the blacks have their shoulders, backs, and arms all scarred up, and not a few of them have had their heads laid open with clubs, stones, and brickbats, and with the but-end of whips and canes. Some have had their jaws broken, others their teeth knocked in or out; while others have had their ears cropped and the sides of their cheeks gashed out. Some of the poor creatures have lost the sight of one of their eyes by the careless blows of the whipper, or by some other violence. “But punishing slaves as above described, is not the only mode of torture. Some tie them up in a very uneasy posture, where they must stand all night, and they will then work them hard all day; that is, work them hard all day, and torment them all night. Others punish by fastening them down on a log, or something else, and strike them on the bare skin with a broad paddle full of holes. This breaks the skin, I shotuld presume, at every hole where it comes in contact with it. Others, when other modes of punishment will not subdue them, cat-haul them; that.is, take a cat by the nape of the neck and tail, or by the hind legs, and draw the claws across the back till satisfied. This kind of punishment poisons the flesh much worse than the whip, and is more dreaded by the slave. Some are branded by a hot iron, others have their flesh cut out in large gashes, to mark them. Some who are prone to run away, have iron fetters riveted around their ankles, 232

Page 233 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. sometimes they are put only on one foot, and are dragged on the ground. Others have on large iron collars or yokes upon their necks, or clogs riveted upon their wrists or ankles. Some have bells put upon them, hung upon a sort of frame to an iron collar. Many, when sick, are suspected by their masters of feigning sickness, and are therefore whipped out to work after disease has got fast hold of them.

When the masters learn that they are really sick, they are in many instances left alone in their cabins during work hours; not a few of the slaves are left to die without having one friend to wipe off the sweat of death. When the slaves are sick, the masters do not, as a general thing, employ physicians, but’doctor’ them themselves; and their mode of practice, in almost all cases, is to bleed and give salts.” (Horace Moulton.) “A highly-intelligent slave, who panted after freedom with ceaseless longings, made many attempts to get posses sion of himself. For every offense he was punished with extreme severity. At one time he was tied up by his hands to a tree, and whipped till his back was one gore of blood. To this terrible infliction he was subjected at intervals for several weeks, and kept heavily ironed while at his work. His master one day accused him of a fault, in the usual terms dictated by passion and arbitrary power; the man protested his innocence, but was not credited. He again repelled the charge with honest indignation. His master’s temper rose almost to frenzy; and seizing a fork, he made a deadly plunge at the breast of his slave. The man being far his superior in strength, caught his arm, and dashed the weapon on the floor. His master grasped at his throat, but the slave disengaged himself, and rushed from the apartment.

Having made his escape, he fled to the woods; and after wandering about for many months, living on roots and berries, and enduring every hardship, hlie was arrested and committed to jail. Here he lay for a considerable time, 20* 233

Page 234 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. allowed scarcely food enough to sustain life, whipped in the most shocking manner, and confined in a cell so loathsome, that when his master visited him, he said the stench was enough to knock a man down. The filth had never been removed from the apartment since the poor creature had been immured in it. Although a black man, such had been the effect of starvation and suffering, that his master declared hle hardly recognized him, his complexion was so yellow, and his hair, naturally thick and black, had become red and scanty-an infallible sign of long-continued living on bad and insufficient food. Stripes, imprisonment, and the gnawings of hunger, had broken his lofty spirit for a season; and, to use his master’s own exulting expression, he was’as humble as a dog.’

After a time he made another attempt to escape, and was absent so long, that a reward was offered for him, dead or alive. He eluded every attempt to take him, and his master, despairing of ever getting him again, offered to pardon him if he would return home. It is always understood that such intelligence will reach the runaway; and accordingly, at the entreaties of his wife and mother, the fugitive once more consented to return to his bitter bondage. I believe this was the last effort to obtain his liberty.

His heart became touched with the power of the Gospel; and the spir-it which no inflictions could sudue, bowed at the cross of Jesus, and with the language on his lips,’ The cup that my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’ submitted to the yoke of the oppressor, and wore his chains in unmurmuring patience till death released him. The master who perpetrated these wrongs upon his slave, was one of the most influential and honored citizens of South Carolina, and to his equals was bland, and courteous, and benevolent even to a proverb.” (Sarah M. Grimke.) 4. The slaves are frequently tortured in a cruel manner with iron collars, chains,. fetters, handcuffs, and the like. 234 I

Page 235 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. Out of twenty-eight advertisements before us, published by slaveholders and signed by their names, in the southern papers, we find the following expressions: “Jim had a large lock chain around his neck;” ” Squire had a chain, locked with a house lock, around his neck;”’; Caroline had on a collar with one prong turned down;” ” Betsy had an iron bar on her right leg;” “Amos had a chain attached to one of his legs;” “Patrick is handcuffed;” “Manuel is much marked with irons;”

“Fanny had an iron band about her neck;” ” Had on a large neck-iron, with a huge pair of horns, and a large bar or band of iron on his left leg;” “

Had round his neck a chain dog-collar;” ” Thomas has a ring of iron on his left foot; also Grisee, his wife, having a ring and chain on the left leg;” ” Said boy was ironed when he left;” “Jim had on, when he escaped, a pair of chain handcuffs;” “John has a clog of iron on his right foot, which will weigh four or five pounds;” “Myra has several marks of lashing, and has irons on her feet.” (See Weld’s American Slavery, pp. 72-77.) These are mere specimens of the instruments of torture employed to confine and punish the slaves. The list of the whole, could it be made out, would be a long one indeed, and would approach in character the instruments of torture employed by the inquisitors themselves. 5. The slaves carry with them the marks of torture on their bodies, such as these instruments of torture inflict, consisting of brandings, maimings, and a great variety of other scars. The following are such expressions as are commonly contained in the advertisements which abound in southern papers, announcing runaways. Out of one hundred and forty-three advertisements nowv before us, we select the following descriptive phrases, which show that the scars were inflicted by deliberate cruelty. While many of the marks usually mentioned in these notices may be the result iI 235

Page 236 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. of accident, this will not apply to the following: “Pompey, forty years old; he is branded on the left jaw;” ” Mary has a small scar over her eye, a good many teeth missing; the letter A is branded on her cheek and forehead;” ” Hambleton limps on his left foot, where he was shot a few weeks ago while a runaway;” ” Josiah has his back very much scarred by the whip, and branded on the thigh and hips in three or four places thus, (J. M.;) the rim of his left ear has been bit or cut off;” “Jim Blake has a piece cut out of each ear;” ” Fountain has holes in his ears, a scar on the right side of his forehead; has been shot in the hind parts of his legs; is marked on the back with the whip;” ” John, left ear cropped;” ” Edmund has a scar on his right temple and under his right eye, and holes in both ears;” “Jerry has a small piece cut out of the top of each ear.” (See Weld’s American Slavery, pp. 77-93.) Cropping or cutting pieces out of the ears, seems to be a favorite mode of identifying the slaves. The knocking out of one or more front teeth is also resorted to, as this is an easily-ascertained descriptive mark. And then the brandings, and other modes of leaving the lasting and distinctive impress of correction, seem to be as necessary to slaveholders, as branding and cropping of various animals are by their owners. Of course, whipping seems always to have been high in favor with the slaveholders, so that whatever marks may be resorted to, this must always form a part. 6. As we have seen already, the master’s proxy is very often intrusted with all the power which the laws of slavery confer on the master. The overseer, and his substitute, the driver, are the executioners of the slave laws. The office of overseer is among the last which an enlightened and conscientious man would choose. The overseer is mostly notable for his licentiousness and severity. The lash and other instruments of correction are put into his hands. 236 l

Page 237 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. And then the driver, who is more dreaded than the over seer himself for his cruelties, is the agent of the overseer to execute his will. The Rev. T. S. Clay, of Georgia, ad vises that “all disputes should first be brought to the driver, and if he can not restore peace, let the master or overseer interfere.” The very name of driver is significant, and could not be applied to those sub-agents, unless they were clothed with authority to make their commands respected. And if mercy would prevent the master from either inflicting these cruel punishments himself, or of delegating them to the overseer-and hlie has recourse to the very com mon mode of disposing of refractory slaves, namely, to sell them to the slave-dealer-yet this does not relieve him from cruelty. In selling his slaves into merciless hands, he must give an account to God for the barbarities inflicted on them. The slave-dealers are notorious for cruelty. The following is a description of one, given by the Hon. James K.

Paulding, in 1817, in his Letters from the South. That he since, to please southern readers, and give circulation to his book, erased this from his next edition, does not invalidate his testimony; and if it did, there are a thousand witnesses who can testify to the same amount: “At one of the taverns along the road we were set down in the same room with an elderly man and a youth, who seemed to be well acquainted with him, for they conversed familiarly and with true republican independence-for they did not mind who heard them. From the tenor of his conversation I was induced to look particularly at the elder. He was telling the youth something like the following detested tale. He was going, it seems, to Richmond, to inquire about a draft for seven thousand dollars, which he had sent by mail, but which, not having been acknowledged by his correspondent, he was afraid had been stolen, and the money received by the thief.‘I should not like to lose it,’ said hle,‘for I worked hard forjt, and sold many a poor 23’ W

Page 238 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. d 1 of a black to Carolina and Georgia, to scrape it together.’ He then went on to tell many a perfidious tale. All along the road, it seems, he made it his business to inquire where lived a man who might be tempted to become a party in this accursed traffic, and when he had got some half dozen of these poor creatures, he tied their hands behind their backs, and drove them three or four hundred miles or more, bareheaded and half naked, through the burning southern sun. Fearful that even southern humanity would revolt at such an exhibition of human misery and human barbarity, he gave out that they were runaway slaves he was carrying home to their masters. On one occasion a poor black woman exposed this fallacy, and told the story of her being kidnapped, and when he got her into a wood out of hearing, he beat her, to use his own expression,‘till her back was white.’ It seems he married all the men and women he bought himself, because they would sell better for being man and wife!‘But,’ said the youth,‘were you not afraid, in traveling through the wild country, and sleeping in lone houses, these slaves would rise and kill you?’ ‘To be sure I was,’ said the other;‘but I always fastened my door, put a chair on a table before it, so that it might wake me in falling, and slept with a loaded pistol in each hand. It was a bad life, and I left it off as soon as I could live without it; for many is the time I have separated wives from husbands, and husbands from wives, and parents from children, but then I made amends by marrying them again as soon as I had a chance; that is to say, I made them call each other man and wife, and sleep together, which is quite enough for negroes. I made one bad purchase, though,’ continued he.‘I bought a young mulatto girl, a lively creature, a great bargain. She had been the favorite of her master, who had latelv married. The difficulty was to get her to go, for the poor creature loved her master. However, I swore most bitterly I was only going to take 238

Page 239 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. her to her mother’s at -, and she went with me, though she seemed to doubt me very much. But when she discov ered, at last, that we were out of the state, I thought she would go mad, and, in fact, the next night she drowned herself in the river close by. I lost a good five hundred dollars by this foolish trick.’ ” (Vol i, p. 121.) 7.

The cruel treatment of slaves leads to acts of inhu manity, as will be manifest by a few facts. The shocking indifference manifested at the death of slaves as human beings, compared with the grief at their loss as property, is a strong proof of inhumanity. The following, from the Charleston (South Carolina) Patriot, will exemplify this remark: “The loss of PROPERTY has been immense, not only on South Santee, but also on this river. Mr. Shelbrood has lost forty-six negroesrthe ma jority lost being the primnest hands he had: bricklayers, carpenters, blacksmiths, and coopers. Mrs. Elias Harry has lost thirty-two negroes, the best part of her primest negroes on her plantation.” A late prospectus of the South Carolina Medical College, located in Charleston, reads thus: “No place in the United States offers as great opportunities for the acquisition of medic(al knowledge, subjects being obtained from among the colored population in sufficient number for every purpose, and proper dissections carried on without offending any individuals in the community.” In the Charleston (South Carolina) Mercury, of October 12, 1838, Dr. Stillman, setting forth the merits of a medical infirmary under his supervision, in Charleston, advertises thus: ” To Planiters and Others.-Wanted, fifty negroes. Any person having sick negroes, considered incurable by their respective physicians, and wishing to dispose of them, Dr. Stillwell will pay cash for negroes affected with scrofula or king’s evil, confirmed hypochondriacism, apoplexy, diseases 239 I

Page 240 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. of the liver, kidneys, spleen, stomach, and intestines, bladder and its appendages, diarrhea, dysentery,” etc. Here the Doctor proposes to buy up the damaged negroes given over as incurable.

And this is a standing advertisement in a popular paper, which shows the sentiment and feeling of the public in reference to the unhappy slaves.

Just read the two following advertisements by females, by which it appears that the inhuman current of sentiment and feeling growing out of slavery produces its legitimate results every-where. The first is from the Huntsville (Alabama) Democrat, of June 18, 1838: Ten D)ollars Reward.-Ran away from the subscriber, a negro woman named Sally, about twenty-one years of age, taking along her two children-one three years, and the other seven months old. These negroes were PuItCHASED BY ME at the sale of George Mason’s negroes, and left a few days after. Any person delivering them to the jailer in Huntsville, or to me, at my plantation, five miles above Triana, on the Tennessee river, shall receive the above reward.

CHARITY COOPER.” The other is from the Mississippian, of May 13, 1838: “

Ten Dollars Reward.-Ran away from the subscriber, a man named Aaron, yellow complexion, blue eyes, etc. I have no doubt he is lurking about Jackson and its vicinity; probably harbored by some of the negroes sold as the property of my late husband-Harry Long, deceased. Some of them are about Richland, in Madison county. I wvill give the above reward when brought to me, about six miles northwest of Jackson, or put in jail, so that I can get him. Lucy LONG.” Read also the following advertisement from the Charles ton (South Carolina) Mercury: “Negroes for Sale.-A girl about twenty years of age raised in Virginia-and her two female children-one four 240

Page 241 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. and the other two years old; is remarkably strong and healthy, never having had a day’s sickness, with the excep tion of the small-pox, in her life. The children are fine and healthy. She is very prolific in her generating qualities, and affords a rare opportunity to any person who wishes to raise a family of strong and healthy servants for their own use. Any person wishing to purchase will please leave their address at the Mercury office.” Thus the public sentiment seems clearly to be formed so as to have little repugnance to such revolting advertisements as those before quoted, which are mere specimens of thousands of others of similar character. The higher and most honorable classes of society in the south are deeply imbued with this atrocious feeling. The Hon. John Randolph, in one of his Congressional speeches, asks: “But where are the trophies of avarice? The handcuff, the manacle, the blood-stained cow-hide! What man is worse received in society for being a hard master?

Who denies the hand of a sister or daughter to such monsters?” The Hon.

Whitemarsh B. Seabrook, of South Carolina, in 1834, says, “I consider imprisonment in the stocks at night, with or without hard labor in the day, as a powerful auxiliary in the cause of good government. To the correctness of this opinion many can bear testimony. EXPERIENCE has convinced ME that there is no punishment to which the slave looks with more horror.” 8. From the foregoing we may justly infcr, that the system of slavery is sinful, because it permits and authorizes such cruelties as are detailed above. The moral evils, or rather actual sins, flowing from man’s taking the place of God, are fully apparent in the slave system, as it is established by law, supported by judicial decisions, and especially as actually practiced in the slave states. Hear the Rev. T. S. Clay, of Bryan county, Georgia, in 21 241

Page 242 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. his “Detail for the Moral’Improvement of Negroes on Plantations.” On “crimes and punishments” he says: “There are several prevailing errors connected with crime and punishment in the present system of plantation discipline. And first, there exists a wrong scale of crime. Offenses against the master are more severely punished than violations of the law of God, or faults which affect the slave’s personal character or good. As examples, we may notice that running away is more severely punished than adultery, and idleness than Sabbathbreaking, and swearing and stealing from the master than defrauding a fellow-slave.

“Under the influence of such a code as this, it can not be a matter of surprise that the negro forms false estimates of the comparative criminality of actions. And further, the general mode of inflicting punishments tends to confound those distinctions. The whip is the general instrument of correction; and so long as the negro is whipped without discrimination for the neglect of work, for stealing, lying, Sabbathbreaking, and swearing, he will very naturally class them all together, as belonging to the same grade of guilt. In a good code of discipline, the punishment will always be suited to the nature and enormity of the crime; and it is highly important that this measure should be well adjusted, for the common people will judge of the criminality of the act by the nature and extent of the punishment. “Another error is obvious in the defective presentation of the design of punishment. The negro is seldom taught to feel that he is punished for breaking God’s law.

Hie only knows his master as lawgiver and executioner; and the sole object of punishment held up to his view is to make him a more obedient and profitable slave. He oftener hears that he shall be punished if he steals than if he breaks the Sabbath or swears; and thus he sees the very threatening of God brought to bear upon his master’s interests. It is 242

Page 243 view page image

CRUELTIES OFi SLAVERY. very manifest to him that his own good is very far from forming the primary reason for his chastisement. His mas ter’s interests are to be secured at all events. God’s claims are secondary, or enforced merely for the purpose of advancing those of his ownelr. His own benefit is the residuum after this double distillation of moral motive-a mere accident.” According to the benevolent Mr. Clay, as ” God’s claims are secondary,” and those of the master supreme, the divine law is superseded, and offenses against the master are more severely punished than violations of the law of God. Indeed, the testimony of Mr. Clay supports the fact, that the master stands to the slave in the place of the civil law as well as the divine. “The fear of corporeal punishment is the only motive peculiar to a slave system.” So says Mr. Clay in the following extract: “The civil offenses of negroes are too often punished on the plantation instead of being prosecuted according to law. They should be taught that they are subject to the laws of the state, both when they violate those laws and when they are violated in their person. The fear of corporeal punishment is the only motive peculiar to a system of slavery.

But if we desire to promote right conduct for its moral not pecuniary advantage, moral motives must be exhibited; for the character of an action partakes primarily of the nature of its motive. Should the fear of punishment alone deter the slave from stealing, he would be still destitute of the principle of honesty-of that which constitutes a moral trait, in his forbearance to take what belongs to another.” In short, moral motives have, it seems, no weight with the slaves-the whip only, and the other modes of correction, are the great moving agencies to be employed in correcting slaves. And how can the masters, in general, be influenced by better motives than the slaves themselves P! 243

Page 244 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. are? Indeed, if such a system as this be not sinful, then sin must have long since been banished from our world. 9. But there are several objections raised against the existence or extent of the alleged cruelties and inhumanity of slavery. Some of these it will be proper to notice. It is said “that such cruelties are incredible.” We maintain the contrary, because slavery regards slaves as property and not as men. Hence, they are treated as property, and not as human beings. The following extracts, from the laws of slave states, are proofs sufficient: “The slave is ENTIRELY subject to the WILL of his master.” (Louisiana Civil Code, art. 273.) “Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, TO ALL

INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.” (Laws of South Carolina, 2 Brev. Dig., 229; Prince’s Digest, 446, etc.) Indeed, genuine slaveholders regard their slaves as mere working animals or merchandise.

Their laws, usages, and common phraseology establish this. The same terms are applied to slaves that are used in reference to cattle. They are, as previously stated, called “stock.” When their children are spoken of prospectively, they are called “increase.” The female slaves that are mothers are called “breeders,” till they are past child-bearing. The “drivers” compel the labor. They are included in the same advertisements with any other vendible articles. They are bought, and sold, and separated like cattle. They are left by inheritance, and pecuniary value attached to them like real estate, stock, and any other kind of property. Hence, as Col. Dayton, of South Carolina, said in Congress, “the northerner looks upon a band of negroes as upon so many men, but the planter or southerner views them in a very different light.” 244

Page 245 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. Or, as Mr. Sumers, of Virginia, said, in 1832: “When, in the sublime lessons of Christianity, he [the slaveholder] is taught to’ do unto others as he would have others do unto him,’ he never dreams that the degraded negro is within the pale of that holy canon.” Or, in the language of Jefferson in 1814, who says of slaveholders, “Nursed and educated in the daily habit of seeing the degraded condition, both bodily and mental, of these unfortunate beings, few minds have yet doubted but that they were as legitimate subjects of property as their horses or cattle.” Indeed, the slaves are often worse treated than if they were beasts. And this can be easily shown from innumerable acts exhibited toward the slaves from their overseers and masters. If it be said “that public opinion is a counteraction to these cruelties,” we reply, It was public opinion that made the slaves. For the laws are no more than public opinion in legal forms. Public opinion continually robs the slaves, by declaring that those who robbed their mothers may also rob them and their children. Public opinion permits and authorizes their masters to flog, wound, and beat them when they please. The Supreme Court of South Carolina decided that the “criminal offense of assault and battery can not, at common law, be committed on the person of a slave.” This public opinion, embodied in law, deprives them of trial by jury; interferes with their consciences, by preventing them from worshiping God, unless their oppressors are present; it robs them of their character, by branding them as liars, and denying them their oath in law; it disregards their modesty, by leaving it with their masters to clothe or let them go naked, as he pleases. This public opinion deprives the slaves of their liberty, the marriage relations, parental authority, and filial obligations. Such is the protection which public opinion, in the form of law, furnishes to the slaves. 21* 245

Page 246 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. 10. The denial of these cruelties by some southern and northern men, too, by no means invalidates the truth of the foregoing statements and testimonies. Dr. Fuller, in his answer to Wayland, feebly wards off, as follows, the charge of cruelty brought against slaveholders: “In your last letter there is a great deal of truth and solemn exhortation, which I hope may do good. It applies, however, entirely to the slave laws, and to abuses not to be defended. In some matters you are grossly misinformed. At least I never heard of the atrocities you mention; such, for example, as the prohibition of marriage, and the defense of profligacy in the abuse of female slaves for purposes of convenience and pecuniary advantage.” (Letters to Wayland, p. 221.) Dr. Fuller overlooks, in the above extract, the leading features of slavery, which are supported by the slave laws; and the workings of slavery, as authorized by law, and maintained by judicial proceedings, are by no means abuses of slavery, but, on the other hand, its natural and legitimate workings. All the black catalogue of unjust treatment, nay, of cruel usage, mentioned in this chapter, and throughout the chapters of these volumes, is nothing else than the true manifestations of slavery in its legitimate characteristics.

Who does not know that marriage and all the holy relations of marriage, are unknown to the slave code and the practice of slavery? Just while we are penning this paragraph, the news has reached us of the case of Edmondson’s two daughters, who, by their wicked owner, have been held at enormous prices, in consequence of the demand for such females in the southern market for the vilest of purposes. And the history of slavery has this same accursed abomination as one of its great leading topics, ever since slavery existed. Slaveholders can never get rid of this charge. Its witnesses are legions; its acts are manifest before the sun. The polluting amalgamation of slavery has infected 246

Page 247 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. he whole population of the south; and its enormities are scarcely exceeded by the abominations of Sodom. But Dr. Fuller, as well as the stoutest champions for slavery, has evaded the point under discussion. This point was American slavery, as authorized by law, sustained by court decisions, and practiced under the sanction and pro tection of these laws and these decisions. He seems to reject that slavery which law sustains, and forms another system founded on “justice and love.” He says: “With these weapons they [the apostles] did extirpate at once, from among Christians, the Roman system of slavery-and let me say, too, that with these arms they are now contending against the southern abuses of slavery; but slavery itself-softened and so entirely changed by Christianity, that the relation between the parties was one of justice and love-they not only did not attack, but permitted, both by their precepts and conduct.” (Letters to Wayland, p. 214.) Now, a slavery guided by justice and love is no slavery at all, but a servitude, at the utmost variance with American slavery. As proof of this, just look at the slavery which Dr. Fuller himself endeavors to practice in the midst of surrounding slavery. Hear him: “In a familiar correspondence like this, I may be pardoned for saying, that, during twelve years, I have devoted the salary given me, whenever at my disposal, to the spiritual instruction of the slaves; and am now doing so. With reference to my own servants, their condition is as good as I can make it. They are placed under a contract, which no instrument of writing could make more sacred. By this contract they, on their part, perform not one-half the work done by free laborers; and I, on my part, am bound to employ a missionary to teach and catechise them and their children, to provide them a home, and clothes, and provisions, and fuel, and land to plant for themselves, to pay 247

Page 248 view page image

CRUELTIES OF SLAVERY. all medical bills, to guarantee to them all the profits of their skill and labor in their own time, to protect them as a guardian, and to administer to the wants of the children, and of those that are sick, and infirm, and aged.” (Letters, p. 222.) Now, according to slavery, no slave can make a contract, nor can he enjoy such privileges as Dr. Fuller, in justice and love, no doubt, confers on his servants. His plan is in utter hostility to slavery, and would eventuate in its destruction, just as the principles of justice and love would destroy slavery. Indeed, Mr. Fuller is scarcely any thing else than an antislavery man. Nay, he is a very abolitionist, in the practical sense of that term; and were his system to be adopted generally, slavery must fall under its operation, just because it is founded in justice and love, to which slavery is in direct antagonism. We should not be surprised to hear that Dr. Fuller is banished from the south, as an incendiary, an insurrectionist, and an abolitionist. 11. It is gratifying to learn, that many in the south, who are even slaveholders, and even apologists for it, are never - theless compelled, from a sense of justice and Christian love, to repudiate some of the leading characteristics of slavery, and to inculcate principles in hostility to it. And yet there is a strange inconsistency in this; because these very things are not abuses of slavery, as they no doubt innocently suppose, but they either form some of its essential qualities, or are the inevitable results or fruits of the system, and can never be separated from the system of which they form essential parts, or are its inevitable consequences. Cruelty is as truly a part of the slave system as love is of Christianity. The moral feelings which led to the seizure and sale of Joseph are generally required to commence or continue the system of slavery in any country. 248

Page 249 view page image

PART IV. CONTRARIETY TO THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES

Page 250 view page image

Page 251 view page image

CHAPTER I. SLAVERY CONTRARY TO MANY SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. HERETOFORE we showed the sinfulness of slavery from the sinful sources in which it originated-from the characteristics common to it and the African slavetrade. We showed, too, that American slavery deprived its subjects of their inalienable rights, and that it inflicted on them many injuries or wrongs. And that these prove the sinfulness of slavery, we have fully shown. We will now proceed to show, 1. That slavery is contrary to many Scriptural prohibi tions. 2. Contrary to many Scriptural injunctions or commands. 3. Contrary to Scripture principles and privileges. 4. It is against the decalogue or moral law. 5. Slavery vs. the spirit of Christianity. 1. American slavery is contrary to many Scriptural pro hibitions. (1.) And first, the despotism or tyranny of slavery is clearly prohibited in Scripture. Let us just see the kind and degree of the master’s power over the slave. According to Roman or civil law, “slaves were held, pro nullis; pro mortuis; pro quadrupedibus-as nothing; as dead persons; as beasts.” (Stroud p. 21.) A slaveholder is one who possesses an absolute right of property in the persons of such as the laws recognize to him as slaves. Or, as the laws of Louisiana have it, ” A slave is one who is in the power of a master, to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor: he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master.” (Stroud, p. 22.) The same thing is thus expressed in the 251

Page 252 view page image

252 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. laws of South Carolina: “Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatever.” (Stroud, p. 23.) Here the absolute despotism of slavery has, by legal enactment, the most comprehensive grant of power.

Under these and similar legal grants and judicial decisions, the master has unlimited sway over the persons of the slaves, as his subjects to obey his commands. He can sell or give them to whomsoever he will; he can determine the kind, degree, and time of labor; he has power to give them such food and clothing as he sees fit; he can compel them to marry or forbear, and separate them when married, at his pleasure; he can whip, beat, chain, or imprison them, at his will; he can transfer all these powers to his substitute, who can exercise them in the same despotic manner. And all these branches of power, as well as many others growing out of them, may be exercised, without hinderance from the law of the land; nay, the laws guarantee all these powers to the slaveholder, and defend him in the exercise of them. And, indeed, such are the views entertained by slaveholders themselves respecting the character of their power. Dr. Fuller says: “My position discloses to me the truth, which I will express, in so many words, by saying that slavery, absolute and unqualified slavery, is despotism.” (Letters, p. 153.) Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, (Philadelphia edition, p. 251,) says: “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most UNREMITTING DESPOTISM on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to the worst of passions; and thus nursed, educated, and daily

Page 253 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. exercised in TYRANNY, can not but be stamped with its odious peculiarities.” The late Edwin C. Holland, in a “Refutation of the Cal umnies circulated against the Southern and Western States,” declares: “It is true, indeed, that all slaveholders have laid down non-resistance and the most perfect and uniform obedience to their orders as fundamental principles in the government of their slaves. This necessarily results from the relation in which they stand; and we might as well denounce that government a despotism, that punishes any infringement of its laws, as to call that a tyranny which is nothing more or less than an authority unavoidably from the very character of the connection between master and slave.” (P. 47; see Quarterly Antislavery Magazine, i, 93.) Here non-resistance, the most perfect and uniform obedience, are necessary to the existence of slavery. The Hon. Whitemarsh B. Seabrook in his “Essay on the Management of Slaves,” p. 4, says: “Every plantation represents a little community differing from its chief in color, hlabits, and general character. The members of this community are his lawful property. Over them he exercises executive, legislative, and judicial powers.” (See Antislavery Magazine, i, 93.) That American slaveholders possess a power over their slaves which is virtually absolute, none can deny. That they, as a whole, desire this power, is proved from the fact of their holding and exercising it, and making laws to confirm and enlarge it, as well as their furious threats against all who denounce the exercise of such power as usurpation, outrage, and tyranny. Nor do some restraining laws, which in most cases are never executed, and in the few cases of execution have no general influence, have any force to remove the despotism and tyranny of slavery. It is the very nature of such despotism as is embraced in slavery, to resist and despise 22 253

Page 254 view page image

254 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. all such restraints. Of this there can be given innumerable proofs. The very words and phrases employed to designate this power are full proof that such power will always terminate in pure despotism of the most oppressive kind. We notice, as examples, the words despot and despotic; tyrant and tyranny; arbitrary, etc. Despot signifies, etymologically, one who possesses arbitrary power. But as those generally who possessed arbitrary power, have exercised it oppressively, the word now means the capricious, unmerciJsul, and cruel exercise of power. So the word tyrant meant one who possessed arbitrary power; but now it signifies one who exercises power to the injury of others. The words tyranny and tyrannical follow the same analogy. So does the word arbitrary, which formerly was applied to that which pertains to the will of one independently of others; but as those who had no restraint on their wills, in the exercise of power, became generally capricious, unreasonable, and oppressive, carbitrary power becomes an expressive designation to describe unjust and oppressive power. The examples of individuals and nations show that such power as is comprised in enslaving others has always run into cruelty, injustice, and oppression. The cases of nations are numerous, such as Babylon, Persia, and nearly all ancient nations. But the case of Egypt is most striking. By the exercise of despotic power, unrestrained by just laws, the Israelites were enslaved.

Cases of individuals, without number, could be adduced, to establish further the truth we maintain. It is, therefore, impossible to vindicate slavery, without vindicating every species and every degree of tyranny exemplified in the world. (See specimens of this in “Slavery As It Is,”

pp. 118-121.) The sentiment in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are by nature free and independent,” is in direct opposition to the despotism of slavery. It is impossible,

Page 255 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROIIIBITIONS. therefore, to vindicate slavery without condemning the political government of our nation. It throws odium on the authors of our revolutionary independence, and brands the name of Franklin, Washlington, Jay, Adams, Hancock, and their associates, with the opprobious names of robbers, murderers, and rebels. If the despotism of slavery be right, then a republican government is wrong; for if des potical government be lawful over one or ten, it is equally lawful over one hundred, one thousand, a million, or ten millions. Now, as slavery is incompatible with the prin ciples of free government, or, in other words, with equal and just rights, slavery must be morally wrong. Indeed, the unlimited despotism of southern slavery seems to contemplate the subjugation of the free labor ing population of the non-slaveholding states, to a despot ismi as great as that of the southern slaves. Governor l’Duffie’s message distinctly avows this, in declaring that domestic slavery, in the place of being a political evil, is the corner-stone of our republican edifice;” that “the institution of domestic slavery supersedes the necessity of an order of nobility.” Hence, Mr. M’Duffie contends that the non-slaveholding states, in less than a quarter of a century, will be compelled to have recourse to slavery, or “take refuge from robbery and anarchy, under a military despotism.” Many and powerful influences, within the last few years, have been put forth by the leading men in the south, in continuing the despotism of slavery, and virtually to extend the institution to the laboring classes of the north. The various movements in suppressing discussion, interfering with the freedom of the press, special legislative acts, and resolutions of public meetings, go to show this with great clearness; so that the peculiar despotism of slavery, uneasy for its own safety, is zealous and active in promoting its despotism where it does not now exist. (See an able pamphlet, published in Boston, by the Massachusetts 255

Page 256 view page image

256 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. Antislavery Society, printed by Isaac Knapp, 1836, entitled “A full Statement of the Reasons which were in part offered to the Committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts,” etc., pp. 48.) Now, despotism, or tyranny in general, and the despotism and tyranny of slavery in particular, are expressly forbidden in the word of God, and condemned in a great variety of ways. We mention the following points, which could be fully sustained by quotations from holy Scripture.

Righteousness and justice is enjoined on all who govern, as the rule of conduct, and not the mere will of the ruler. God gave express laws for this very purpose in his revelation to Moses, which are binding on all rulers. And all despotic laws are condemned by the enactments of justice and righteousness contained in the Mosaic code. The despotism of the rich is condemned. The despotism of rulers is particularly condemned. All arbitrary conduct from man to man is condemned, except so far as it is guided by the principles of justice and right. How true is the following declaration of Cassius M. Clay! After enumerating the evils of slavery, he asks: ” Where all these evils exist, can liberty, constitutional liberty, live? No, indeed, it can not, and has not existed in conjunction with slavery.” (2.) The degradation of slavery is to be deprecated and shunned.

“If thou canst be free use it rather.” The sentiment of the civil law in regard to slaves is equally true of American slavery, and of slavery in general, in all ages and in all countries. (See Stroud, p. 21.) Slaves were held, pro nullis; pro mortuis; pro quadrupedibus-as nothing; as dead; as quadrupeds. They had no head in the state; no name, title, or register; they were not capable of being injured, nor could they take by purchase or descent. They had no heirs, and therefore could

Page 257 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. make no will exclusive of what was called their peculium. Whatever they acquired was their master’s; they could not plead, nor be pleaded for, but were excluded from all civil concerns whatever. They could not claim the indulgence of absent reipublicce causa; they were not entitled to the rights and considerations of matrimony, and therefore had no relief in case of adultery; nor were they proper objects of cognation or affinity, but of quasi-cognation. They could be sold, transferred, or pawned as goods, or personal estate, for goods they were, and as such they were esteemed. They might be tortured or punished, at the discretion of their lord, or even be put to death by his authority. This description is to be taken as applicable to the condition of slaves at an early period of the Roman history; for before the fall of the Roman empire several important changes had been introduced in favor of the slaves. By the lex Cornelia de sicariis, the killing of a slave became punishable. (Dig., p. 488; Cooper’s Justinian, p. 411.) The jus vita et necis claimed by the master was restrained by Claudius, the successor of Caligula. (Ibid.) The emperor Adrian prohibited generally-cruel treatment toward slaves, and he banished Umbrica, a lady of quality, for five years, quod ex levissimis causis suas ancillas atrosissime tractasset. (Cooper’s Justinian, p. 412.) Antonius Pius applied the lex Cornelia de sicariis specifically to the masters of slaves, and the same law was strengthened by Severus and by Constantine. (Ibid.) Slaves might always induce an investigation by flying to the statutes of the princes. (See Stroud, p.

21.) Now, American slavery does not, in its general characteristics, differ from Roman slavery. The Roman slaves were considered the same as quadrupedes, quadrupeds, or brutes, four-footed animals. The degradation of the slave corresponds to, and is the contrast of the despotic and tyrannical authority of the master. The slave can claim no right to himself, to his body, or to his soul. He has no right to the 22* 267

Page 258 view page image

258 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. fruits of his own labor or skill, as all these belong to his master. He is compelled to use such food, clothing, and shelter as his master may see fit to give him. He may be bought, sold, or bartered like goods and cattle. He may be beaten, scourged, branded, or even killed, without any punishment inflicted for these wrongs. The child-slave, as soon as born, is classed with the beasts of the field. Over his infancy no mother has a right to watch. No father may instruct or guide him. Let Jay complete this picture: “Torn from his parents and sold in the market, he soon finds himself laboring among strangers, under the whip of a driver, and his task augmenting with his ripening strength. Day after day, and year after year, is he driven to the cotton or sugar field, as the ox to the furrow. No hope of reward lightens his toil. The subject of insult, the victim of brutality, the laws of his country afford him no redress. His wife, such only in name, may at any moment be dragged from his side; his children, heirs only of his misery and degradation, are but articles of merchandise; his mind, stupefied by his oppressors, is wrapped in darkness; his soul, no man careth for it; his body, worn with stripes and toil, is at length committed to the earth, like the brute that perisheth.” The slave, too, possesses those peculiarities of bodily organization, which are looked upon with deep disgust, contempt, prejudice, and aversion. Their ignorance, stupidity, filth, rags, nakedness-their servile air, low employments, repulsive food, wretched dwellings-their purchase, sale, and treatment as brutes-all these are so many steps of degradation. The slave, too, is destitute of learning, wealth, office, personal respectability, influential friends, and all those peculiarities, habits, tastes, and acquisitions which excite the interest of others in his behalf. If he have talents, they are buried for want of education to develop them.

Page 259 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. Add to the foregoing, that the slave is robbed of all motives to noble exertion, and can be acted on only by fear. So says the slaveholder, Mr. Turnbull: “The only principle upon which any authority over them [the slaves] can be maintained, is fear; and he who denies this has little knowledge of them.” The Rev. Thomas S. Clay, another slaveholder, says: “The fear of corporeal punishment is the only motive peculiar to a system of slavery.” The master rules by an undisguised reign of terror. The degrading whip, and branding iron, and chains, and stocks, banishment fiom country, and a thousand other indignities are constantly employed to subdue or keep subdued the hapless slave. And those whose natural feelings will not allow them to use the whip or stocks, are compelled, by slavery, to deliver over their unwhipped refractory slaves to the cruel trader, who seizes the stubborn, but now doomed convict, and, in chains, transfers him to the sugar or cotton plantations, where the last spark of liberty is extinguished forever in his bosom. If it be said that many benevolent and pious slaveholders do much to elevate their slaves, by a treatment which counteracts the power of slave laws-to this we reply, that this is readily admitted; and right gladly do we acknowledge and record these acts of justice. But this is done, however, as no part of slavery, but in spite of it; and these pious endeavors and acts, to which slavery gives no countenance, are so mhny witnesses which testify so strongly against the system, that a conscience but partially awake can never be at ease in treating human beings as slavery would treat them. Now, this degradation of human beings is expressly forbidden in Scripture: “If thou canst be free, use it rather.

Be ye not the servants of men. Ye are bought with a price.” The original dignity of man is at variance with the degradation of slavery. This degradation is condemned in 259

Page 260 view page image

260 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROI-BITIONS. the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, as appears from the various declarations concerning their bondage.

(3.) The Scripture calls slavery oppression, and condemns it under the name of sinful. Slavery, in Scripture, is called oppression: “And the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor,” Ex. i, 13, 14. “I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them,” Ex. iii, 9. That the Scriptures call slavery oppression, is also evident from Isaiah lviii, 6: “Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?” The treatment which the Hebrews received from the Egyptians, though far less oppressive than that which our slaves receive, was, nevertheless, of the same nature which slaves every-where receive.

(See Ex. i, 11-14; ii, 23, and v, 7-10.) The Egyptians reduced the Israelites to slavery in two respects. First, they compelled the males to involuntary service; and, secondly, they gave them no compensation. In these two particulars, Egyptian and American slavery are the same. In other respects, our slavery is much worse than theirs. Among them the males only were enslaved; and they were not bought and sold, and separated from their families, as is the case with us. Our slavery is much more oppressive than that of Egypt. Oppression is an essential part of slavery, and is embodied in all the laws that sustain it. Indeed, the slave laws, and the practice under them, form a complete legalized system of oppression; and they could not well be more oppressive, were the laws enacted for the express purpose of establishing oppression. As a proof of this, let all that is oppressive

Page 261 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. in the slave laws be removed, and slavery wouiQ have no existence. It could not live a day, if the element of oppression were separated from it. Now, oppression is denounced and punished as a sin: “And when we cried unto the Lord God of our fathers, the Lord heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labor, and our oppression,” Deut. xxvi, 7. “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I rise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him,” or “that would insnare him,” Ps.

xii, 5. “He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor,” Ps. lxxii, 4. “If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter; for He that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they,” Ecc. v, 8.

From these and a multitude of texts of Scripture, it is plain that slavery is a system of grievous oppression, which is declared to be a great sin, and punished as such with the most signal punishment. God punished it with ten plagues of Egypt, among which was the destruction of the first-born, and, in the end, with the destruction of their king and army. In short, oppression has been punished with all manner of judicial severities, even with slaughter and death. Hence, the Scripture forbids slavery as it exists among us, as often and as severely as it forbids oppression. (4.) Slavery is sinful, because it deprives of just and righteous wages. The right of laborers to wages is constantly enjoined in the holy Scriptures.

A fair equivalent or compensation to the laborer for his services, is most clearly enjoined, as the following texts will show; and these are only mere specimens of the language of Scripture on the subject: “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and 261

Page 262 view page image

262 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth him naught for his work,”

Jer. xxii. 13. “The laborer is worthy of his hire,” Luke x, 7. “The laborer is worthy of his reward,” 1 Timothy v, 18. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal,” Col. iv, 1. In these passages an equivalent for the labor rendered is most expressly enjoined. But slavery violates this great moral precept. It deprives the slave of himself in the outset, and then deprives him of all the fruits of his labor. The slave does not receive for his labor the same compensation that a freeman does. The coarse raiment, the hard fare, the rude cottages, the scanty furniture, the partial medical attendance, and scanty provision for old age, form no proper equivalent for the services of the slave. The leading element of slavery is to exact from the slave more than he receives. Were it not for its real or supposed profit, in contributing to the pleasure, comfort, riches, or dignity of the master something beyond what slaves receive, slavery would soon come to an end. The Bible, therefore, which demands that the laborer shall receive just compensation, condemns slavery, in condemning the withholding of just and equal wages.

If to defraud a hired servant of one day’s wages be a sin, to compel a man to labor during life, and give no wages, is a much greater sin. The following is a specimen of the judgments denounced against those who defraud the laborer: “Behold the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them that have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth,”

James v, 4. This denunciation must lie against slaveholders; because the hire is by fraud kept back from the laborer. Were the Scriptural requirement of just wages exacted from slaveholders, they would soon abandon the entire system as unprofitable.

Page 263 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. (5.) In condemning the capture of fugitive slaves, the Scripture condemns slavery. The Scripture, in the following words, condemns the capture of fugitive servants or slaves: “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you in the place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him,” Deut. xxxiii, 15, 16. This law teaches, that the mere voluntary escape of a servant from his master, was deemed sufficient presumptive evidence that he was oppressed in his master’s service, and was, therefore, entitled to his freedom. The servant could not be subjected again to servitude without his consent. He might choose the place in which he should dwell. And this fact shows that the Israelites were to protect such fugitives even at the expense of war.

(Isaiah xvi, 3, 4.) This law seems to have reference to foreign servants, who were oppressed with the cruel slavery which then prevailed, but which was expressly condemned by the Mosaic laws. Thus God, who hates and punishes all tyranny and oppression, interposes his authority to rescue such persons from cruel masters. This law provides, that if any person of a foreign nation, held ill unrighteous servitude, or in servitude against their will, fled to the Israelites, he should be received and protected as a freeman, and neither returned to his master nor oppressed by them. And this law recognized the right of all men to liberty, and condemned all servitude of innocent persons, except that which was voluntary on the part of those who rendered the service. The statutes and principles regulating servitude-not sl,very-among the Hebrews, provided to the same extent in behalf of Hebrew servants, who were all voluntary servants, except culprits. We say the Hebrew laws did not 3egulate slavery, but, on the contrary, condemned it. He 263

Page 264 view page image

264 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. that stole a man, or sold him, or if he retained him, was condemned to death. And no innocent being, according to the Mosaic law, could be sold by another, or reduced to servitude of any kind contrary to his own choice. If, during the six years’ service, or less, as the case might be, the master of a Hebrew servant deprived him of an eye, a tooth, or the like, he forfeited all right to future service, so that the servant was to be free for his tooth’s sake. (Ex. xi, 26, 27.) Thus, in the temporary and voluntary servitude which was allowed and sanctioned by God, whenever the master treated the servant with cruelty or injustice, such as mutilation or injury of any member of his body, the servant, by statute, was freed from any further service, and might, therefore, assert his freedom as his right. The foreigner who was oppressed with grievous servitude, might flee to the Israelites, who, by their law, were bound to receive and protect him, as appears from Deut. xxii, 15, 16, as well as from Lev. xix, 33, 34.

According to the latter passage, the fugitive or sojourning stira;nger should not be vexed or oppressed, but permitted “to dwell with them as one born among them.” The Israelites were instructed “to love such as themselves,” while at the same time they were reminded of their own oppressive servitude in Egypt, as a reason why they should love, and therefore treat kindly, every oppressed person. Now, the slave laws respecting fugitive slaves, and the practice under these laws, are in direct opposition to the laws and principles of the law of Moses, and, indeed, of the whole revealed will of God. While the laws of Moses rescued a Hebrew from service for maltreatment, and received and protected oppressed foreigners who fled to them, the slave laws and the practice under them do just the opposite. The oppressed slave can not be released from his service, for maltreatment where he resides; and if he attempts to fly from oppression, he is pursued as a murderer

Page 265 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. or notable culprit, and has little or no protection wherever he may fly to. No crime in a slave is so great, in the view of a slaveholder, as that of running away from his master, though to avoid the greatest possible oppression. We are commanded in Scripture, to love and assist our fellowmen when they are oppressed; yet, whoever assists a slave to escape from the cruel bondage of slavery, is pronounced by slave laws and slaveholders as guilty of the greatest crime. If the slave, however oppressed with poor and scanty food, with inadequate clothing and shelter, with stripes and mutilation, or the like, attempts to escape to a land of freedom, he is at once denounced as an outlaw. If suspected of having an intention to escape, he is watched with sleepless vigilance. If he makes the attempt to flee, he is pursued by day and by night. Bloodhounds are or may be set on his track. Deadly weapons are used to mutilate him, if he can not otherwise be taken. He is shot down as the common enemy of his race, if he can not otherwise be taken.

Experienced and professional hireling man-hunters are dispatched after the fugitive from oppression, and he is taken by stratagem if possible. The entire newspaper press is hired to advertise the fugitive, and his description to the life is publicly announced every-where. High rewards are publicly offered for his detection or delivery. When seized by force or by fraud, he is dragged, in chains and gagged, to the dominion of his master. He is made an example to the other slaves, often at the expense of his life, but mostly at least by mutilation and scars. The whip and the stocks, cropping, branding, the collar, and a thousand other instruments and methods of torture are employed, to complete the terrible example of punishment for the capital offense of running away from cruel oppression.

Or, perhaps, the unmanageable retaken refugee, after enduring such correction as is deemed necessary, is now to be transported for lif(, and sold for the cotton field or sugar plantations, or 23 265

Page 266 view page image

266 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. doomed to waste life in the rice swamps. But who can draw the picture of these enormities! We can not do it. No one can do it. Who, by pen and ink, can portray the bloodthirsty hounds let loose on the innocent victim-the cruel master and overseer, and collected neighbors, with all deadly weapons shouldered, in hot pursuit-the negrocatcher in speed to win the prize, the hire of his damning labor and then the bribed squire, and constable, and mancatcher in the free states on the scent of the fugitive-the common jails converted into slave barracoons? All these and a thousand more baffle description, and we must not attempt the fruitless endeavor. If the northern states were really free, the slaves would soon escape into them, and slavery would soon become extinct by emigration. Is there liberty for the slave, at present, in any part of the United States? Certainly not. When he steps on the soil of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, or Iowa, he is still a slave. The manstealer still pursues him, and is aided in his work by the citizen and the laws of the free states, so called. It is true, we all say, “All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And God said, ‘Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.” But we have coveianted with manstealers, and we can not obey God’s laws. The following is from a Kentuckian, who was conversant with slavery: “In December of 1833, I landed at New Orleans, in the steamer W -. It was after night, dark and rainy. The passengers were called out of the cabin, from the enjoyment of a fire, which the cold, damp atmosphere rendered very comfortable, by a sudden shout of’ Catch himcatch himcatch the negro.’ The cry was answered by a hundred voices:‘Catch him-kill him.’

Page 267 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. “After standing in the cold water for an hour, the miserable being began to fail. We observed him gradually sinking-his voice grew weak and tremulous-yet he continued to curse! In the midst of his oaths he uttered broken sentences.’ I didn’t steal the meat-I didn’t stealmy master lives-master-master lives up the river-[his voice began to gurgle in his throat, and he was so chilled that his teeth chattered audibly]-I didn’t-steal-I didn’t stealmy-my master-my-I want to see my master-I didn’t-no-my mas-you want-you want to. kill me-I didn’t steal the-‘ His last words could just be heard as he sunk under the water.

“During this indescribable scene, not one of the hundred that stood around made any effort to save the man till he was apparently drowned. He was then dragged out, and stretched on the bow of the boat, and soon sufficient means were used for his recovery. The brutal captain ordered him to be taken off his boat-declaring, with an oath, that he would throw him into the river again, if he was not immediately removed I withdrew, sick and horrified with this appalling exhibition of wickedness. “Upon inquiry, I learned that the colored man lived some fifty miles up the M.ssissippi; that he had been charged with stealing some article from the wharf; was fired upon with a pistol, and pursued by the mob. “In reflecting upon this unmingled cruelty-this insensibility to suffering and disregard of life, I exclaimed,‘Is there no flesh in man’s obdurate heart!’ One poor man, chased like a wolf by a hundred bloodhounds, yelling, howling, and gnashing their teeth upon him, plunges into the cold river to seek protection! A crowd of spectators witness the scene, with all the composure with which a Roman populace would look upon a gladiatorial show. Not a voice heard in the sufferer’s behalf. At length the powers of nature give way-the blood flows back to the 267 r

Page 268 view page image

268 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. heart-the teeth chatter-the voice trembles and dies, while the victim drops down into his grave. “What an atrocious system is that which leaves two millions of souls, friendless and powerless, hunted and chased, afflicted and tortured, and driven to death, without the means of redress! Yet such is the system of slavery!”

(James A. Thome.) “Occasionally, armed parties of whites go in pursuit of them, who make no secret of their determination to shoot down all that refuse to surrender-which they sometimes do. In one instance a negro, who was closely pursued, instead of heeding the order to surrender, waded into a shallow pond, beyond the reach of his pursuers; refusing still to yield, he was shot through the heart by one of the party. This occurred near Natchez, but no notice was taken of it by the civil authorities; but in this they were consistent, for the city patrols or night watch are allowed to do the same thing with impunity, though it is authorized by no law.

“Another mode of capturing runaways is by bloodhounds. This I hope is rarely done. An instance was related to me in Claiborne county, Mississippi. A runaway was heard about the house in the night. The hound was put upon his track, and in the morning was found watching the dead body of the negro. The dogs are trained to this service while young. A negro is directed to go into the woods, and secure himself upon a tree.

When sufficient time has elapsed for doing this, the hound is put upon his track. The blacks also are compelled to worry them till they make them their implacable enemies: and it is common to meet with dogs, which will take no notice of whites, though entire strangers, but will suffer no black beside the house servants to enter the yard. Captured runaways are confined in jail till claimed by their I

Page 269 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. owners. If they are not claimed within the time prescribed by law, they are sold at public sale, and in the meantime are employed as scavengers, with a heavy ball and chain fastened to one of their ankles.” (New York Evangelist, January 31, 1835.) In the Constitution of the United States we have the following clause, which has been assumed, by subsequent acts of Congress, as the basis on which were founded the statutes to arrest fugitive slaves: “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” (Art. iv, sec. ii, clause 8.) Claiming authority from this clause of the Constitution, an act of Congress was passed February 12, 1793, and is as follows: “When a person held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territories, the person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent, or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made; and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent, or 23* 269

Page 270 view page image

270 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labor to the state or territory from which he or she fled.” For many years Pennsylvania has been the forum of most of the decisions respecting fugitive slaves. The records, however, are but few, as most of the cases have occurred before justices of the peace, who have been generally the bribed allies of the slaveholders, as has been the case in most of the free states bordering on the slave states. Judge Washington decided that the clause in the Constitution “did not extend to the case of a slave voluntarily carried by his master into another state, and there leaving him under the protection of some law declaring him free.” The same judge also declared, “that the act of Congress applied exclusively to fugitive slaves, and not to those whom their masters themselves brought from one state to another.” (See Stroud, pp. 166, 167.) In 1826 the law of Pennsylvania was made more stringent, so that magistrates were not allowed to decide in cases of fugitives, but they were brought before the judges. But, as the certificate of the judge is to be regarded as conclusive evidence that the claimant may remove his captive to a land where his color is his condemnation, even in Pennsylvania great injustice to colored persons may be perpetrated with impunity. But in those states where justices are the arbiters of law and of fact, man-stetling may be prosecuted under the cover of law. Indeed, thousands of free persons have been enslaved, under the pretext that they were fugitives from service or labor. No one who examines the subject can avoid perceiving that the laws of the United States, and of the slave states, and some of the free states, are in direct opposition to the Mosaic code, in regard to those who escape from slavery. When the Hebrew was maltreated, his obligation as a servant ceased; although no Hebrew was allowed to be a

Page 271 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. slave, according to the law of Moses, or the principles of the Bible. When an alien, or stranger, or one not of the Hebrew nation, among whom slavery, properly so called, prevailed, fled to the Hebrews, hle was to be received, treated, and protected as a freeman, at any risk. The rcason was, that because slavery-that is, involuntary and hereditary service-was essentially and unavoidably sinful, no slavery could be allowed where the law of God gov erned; and therefore it could not be tolerated among the Hebrews. Had real slavery existed in the Hebrew nation, by virtue of the Mosaic code, its practical effects would have been similar to those in our slave states, and in all other slave countries. But as long, and so far, as the Israelites observed their laws on servitude, the common atrocities and cruelties of slavery had no being. It was only when they violated their laws, that they practiced human oppression; for while God sanctioned and regulated several mild kinds of servitude among the Hebrews, for the benefit of the poor servants themselves, he most effectually prohibited every thing like slavery of any kind. He that stole, or sold, or retained a stolen man, was to be punished with death. (Exodus xxi.) And as these are the three principal modes of enslavement-all others being reducible to these-and these were forbidden, slavery was expressly prohibited, under pain of death, to every individual of the Hebrew nation. Poor persons might sell themselves for a time; but no Hebrew could sell another human being. Were the principles and statutes of the Mosaic code introduced into the slave states, slavery could not live more than six years, or fifty at most, in their midst. Nay, were the regulations of the Mosaic code only in regard to the reception of fugitive slaves, and the emancipation of Hebrews when maltreated, applied to the regulation of southern slavery, it could not exist any length of time under such regulations. 271

Page 272 view page image

272 CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. There is such an amount of positive wickedness and inhuman cruelty found in this single character of slavery, in regard to fugitive slaves, that no pen can describe them. Many well-disposed persons in the free states, because the laws supported this barbarous conduct, have silently overlooked the enormities. But the progress of the bold and daring effrontery of slave-catchers, and manifest kidnappers, has become so glaring and intolerable, that the general sentiments of our best men are directed to observe the clear sovereignty of the Mosaic code over the oppressive laws of Congress and the slave states. To legalize crime, and throw around it the sanction of statutory enactments, is more wicked than to perpetrate it after it has been made lawful. Thus, the members of a legislature who would enact a law authorizing theft and murder, would be more guilty than actual thieves and murderers. The former justify crime, and thus blot out all distinction between right and wrong; the latter merely commit the crime, when legalized, but attempt no justification of the offense. It has been said, as well it may, that “there are many benevolent slaveholders who would by no means pursue, as is commonly done, their fugitive slaves.” This is admitted. But then their conduct is properly a protest against the sinfulness of slavery; for this same capture of runaways is a part, and an essential part, of the system; and therefore their conduct is a practical acknowledgment of the sinfulness of slavery. We might here bring under discussion several express prohibitions-such as “Thou shalt not kill;” “

Thou shalt not steal “-which slavery directly and grossly violates; but we will consider these under the discussion on the ten commniandments, of which they form a part. (6.) Many examples could here be given in reference to fugitive slaves which would show, to the life, what slavery is. In this work we have occasionally quoted instances of

Page 273 view page image

CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITIONS. the practical workings of the system.

Here we have not room to enlarge. We will content ourselves with a mere outline of the steps of treating runaways, which could be confirmed by hundreds or even thousands of examples under all or most of the items.

First. The vigilant caution observed to prevent running away. Second. The pursuit of fugitives. Third. The bloodhounds, or other dogs, employed to find them. The profession of hunting men with dogs seems to be still a business worth pursuing, as appears from the follow ing advertisement, in the Sumner County (Ala.) Whig: “Negro )oygs.-The undersigned having bought the entire pack of negro dogs-of the Hay and Allen stock-he now proposes to catch runaway negroes. His charge will be $3 per day for hunting, and $15 for catching a runaway. He resides three and a half miles north of Livingston, near the lower Jones’ Bluff road. WILLIAM GAMBEL. “Nov. 6, 1845.-6mn.” Fourth. The deadly weapons used to kill or mutilate them when necessary. Fifth. The professional men-hunters. Sixth. Advertisements in the public papers. Seventh. The fugitive dragged back in chains. Eighth.

Whipped or tortured on return. The world-whether antediluvian, heathen, Mohlammedani, or popish-never yet furnished greater examples of sinful, wicked conduct, than is practiced continually under the foregoing heads; and the limits of our volumes alone prevent their insertion. We must refer our readers, however, to the various publications which have made collections from the published accounts of the slaveholders themselves, who, in this matter, have, without designing it, proclaimed to the world their own sin and shame. 273

Page 274 view page image

2, 4 BLAYERY VS8. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. CHAPTER II. SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL

COMMANDS. SLAVERY is contrary to many plain Scriptural injunctions or commands; or, in other words, there are duties enjoined in Scripture which can not be performed, except in direct opposition to the laws which establish slavery, and the practice under these laws. And, as the violation of these commands is sinful, the system of slavery, which demands the violation of Scriptural command, and therefore prohibits the performance of Christian duties, must be chargeable with the sin. We furnish the following plain Scriptural command, which slavery violates, by preventing the performance of the duties enjoined in these commands or injunctions. 1. Slavery is contrary to justice, or righteousness. Justice is, “suum cuique attribuens,” “giving to every one his own.” Justice and righteousness are one and the same. Justice is an eternal and immutable principle, emanating from the perfections of God. It is a principle of right, in opposition to wrong. On this ground Abraham made an appeal to God himself, who sustains the appeal to this general principle of right.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis, xviii, 25. It is not a conventional agreement, usage, or custom. Justice and injustice are not the same, but, like virtue and vice, the one is opposed to the other.

Now, slavery is a violation of the principles of right, or justice.

Slavery does not “give to each his own.” It deprives a man of his labor, or, rather, it robs him of himself, his body, and his soul. The Africans, as well as others, sprung from one common father, and were all alike free.

They were not enslaved for crime. They were either stolen or taken violently, and were therefore enslaved by III by,

Page 275 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. theft or forcible robbery. And what commenced by theft and robbery, is now continued by robbery or violence.

Every new generation is now enslaved by a fresh act of violence. As all are born free, and children, as soon as born, are enslaved, the violence or robbery, by law, is repeated in the case of every child, whose mother is a slave. Every child of a slave mother is robbed at its birth, by an overt act of injustice, considered by all people as the greatest wrong that could be inflicted. 2. Slavery is contrary to the great law of love.

This law was given to the Hebrews in the following words: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord,” Lev. xix, 18. By neighbor every man is meant; for the same injunction is given in regard to stran gers, (verse 34.) And the word neighbor is explained by “another man,” (Lev. xx, 10, and Romans xiii, 8.) And this law of love is repeated in the New Testament by our Lord, (Matt. xxii, 39,) and most peremptorily enjoined by the apostles. “Charity [or love] is kind,” 1 Cor. xiii, 4. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor.” The law of love certainly, therefore, requires three things. The law of love requires us to act justly toward all men.

Hence, it requires masters to render to their servants a just equivalent for their services. But slavery refuses to do this; and justice demands, that the servants shall be the disposers of their services, by an agreed price. But slavery knows nothing of this Scriptural mode of requiting; for its code fixes on the person who must serve, and the amount of service to be rendered, and demands no equivalent, but, on the contrary, refuses it, or leaves it optional with the master to do as he pleases. This law of love is kind. It teaches to do good to all. If we love our neighbor, we will endeavor to promote his happiness and do him good. It certainly can not be doing him good to seize on him, and his property, and his family, 275 v

Page 276 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. and appropriate all to ourselves. But it is useless to speak of slavery as a system of good to the slaves. This was never pretended as the cause why they were brought from Africa; nor is it the plea held forth in the slave laws. Nor is the good of the slaves, in any degree, the object in view by the slave system. Slavery aims at the good, the profit, the benefit of the master, and at nothing else; for the recent plea of slavebholders, when pressed by argument, of keeping slaves for their good, is nothing more than an insulting aggravation of the known and undeniable sinfulness of slavery. It is preposterous to suppose that it is doing good to human beings to treat them as slaves, when this treatment is an organized system of wrong and injury, from beginning to end. If we love our neighbor, we shall feel an interest in promoting his happiness. If we love him in a great degrep, we shall feel a proportionate interest in promoting his happiness. If we love him as ourselves, we shall take the same delight in his happiness that we do in our own. Our love to our children leads us to accord to them all the rights and privileges of men, when they arrive at a proper age. If we love the children of others as we ought, we will accord them all the privileges of men, when they arrive at maturity. True love to them would never enslave them from their birth, or refuse them full liberty when they are of full growth, or treat them as slaves are treated from birth to maturity, without education, or the common privileges of minors or apprentices. The law of love prohibits every species of ill to our neighbor. Love workethl no ill to his neighbor. That slavery is a positive injury to his neighbor can not be denied; and therefore it must be opposed to the law of love. And( what is slavery but a series of injuries to the slave from his birth to his grave?

As to faither, he is not permitted to have any. His mother is merely his.

nurse, to rear him for the master, as the dam rears the young for its owner. In 276

Page 277 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. tender youth, no lessons of moral, religious, or intellectual instruction are communicated, other than those necessary to make him a profitable piece of property to his master, as his laborious drudge in all after life. When come to matu rity, he is then the marketable commodity of his owner, to be sold, or kept at hard labor, as the mere estimate of dollars and cents will calculate, and nothing else.

If he has a wife at all, even for a time, she must be under the control of another, and a separation may take place any moment. His children are sold before his eyes to the highest bidder, whose faces he will never see again. If superannuated old age renders him unfit for labor, then his master, who has been robbing him from his birth, is to be the only arbiter and dispenser of his food, raiment, and all earthly supplies. If it be said that some keep slaves for their good, we reply, that this can not be allowed as to the system in general. The system is chargeable with all we bring against it. And in regard to particular cases, we reply, that to treat them for their good, well-instructed love would teach their release from their degraded condition; because far more would be benefited than injured by it, and the benefits would be far greater than the injuries.

And, as one individual can not be held in slavery for his real benefit, without exposing another, or many, to be held in slavery to his injury, then Christian charity would dictate to keep none in slavery. No conscientious, duly-informed man, will consider himself entitled to use the services of another, because he has power over them, without rendering to him an equivalent. And there can be no equivalent, in food, clothing, comforts, or even money, rendered to a man which can be an equivalent to him for his own self, or his personal liberty and ownership in himself, and his rightful ownership in his wife and children. The law of love requires the master to 24 277 A

Page 278 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. regard the relation between himself and his slaves as a relation which is in itself sinful, and therefore to be dissolved without the least delay which the case will admit. 3. What is called “the golden rule” is in direct opposition to slavery. ” Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” Matt. vii, 12. The following is the exposition of St. Augustine on this passage: “This is the sum of the law and the prophets. For we are to learn by this principle, Whatsoever you desire to be done to you, do the same to another; and whatsoever you are unwilling to be done to you, you should not do to another. You are not willing that others should deprive you of life, your wife, your good name, your wealth, etc.; therefore do not take these from others, but preserve and cherish them.” (See Corn. a Lapide in Matt. vii, 12.) Or take the exposition of Cornelius a Lapide, a distin. guished Roman Catholic commentator, who wrote in 1685, and who certainly gives an impartial view of the text. The sense is as follows; namely, “Whatsoever I have heretofore said concerning loving our neighbor and of giving of alms, all these things arise from this first dictate of nature; and the first principle of moral philosophy depends on this principle of equity-that whatsoever you will to be done to you, do the same to others; and whatsoever you are unwilling to suffer from others, you should not inflict on another.” (A Lapide in Matt. vii, 12.) Take the exposition of the sober Doddridge on the text: “Animated by the goodness of God, you should study to express your gratitude for it by your integrity and kindness to your fellow-creatures, treating them, in every instance, as you would think it reasonable to be treated by them, if you were in their circumstances and they in yours; for this is, in effect, a summary and abstract of all the human and social virtues recommended in the moral precepts of the 11 278

Page 279 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. law and the prophets, and it was one of the greatest ends of both to bring men to this equitable and amiable temper.” No law of holy Scripture is of more binding force than this. It does not allow one human being to tyrannize over another. Tile following observations will place this in a convincing light: (1.) No one under the influence of this rule ever made a man a slave. Slavery could not originate under the exercise of this rule. No one would think hlie is doing that to another which he is willing to be done to himself, in violently dragging a human being from Africa, and then selling him, or even buying such a man. Nor can he, guided by this rule, seize the newly-born infant, and thus commence a course of violence which may last for life. (2.) And as slavery could not originate under the guidance of this rule, so it could not be continued under it. This rule is at variance with exacting unrequited labor from another, feeding him with coarse or scanty food, clothing him poorly, preventing him from reading the Bible, or the like. (3.) As no one would willingly subject himself or his children to the operation of slave laws, he would never subject others to the operation of these laws, if guided by this rule. (4.) None, under the fair operation of this law, would ever continue to hold others in slavery; for no man would be willing to be treated as a slave, and, therefore, by considering himself as in the place of the slave, he could never treat him as he would be unwilling to be treated. No man can hold an innocent person in involuntary servitude without violating the Savior’s law of love.

Nothing could induce the slaveholder to take the place of his slaves; therefore, he does not do to them as he would have them do to him. No man desires slavery. All men desire freedom. “If thou mayest be free, use it rather.” The desire of freedom 279

Page 280 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. is a lawful one; and as all will choose, and by their judgment and conscience claim it for themselves, so no one can deprive others of freedom under the influence of the rule-do unto others as you would they should do unto you. (5.) This great branch of the law of love establishes the brothcrhood of the human family, whether as individuals or nations. Slavery violates this; because it excludes the slave from the fraternal sympathies of mankind, by for bidding to treat him as a fellow-man, a neighbor, and brother. Slavery, at least in its theoretical principles, re gards one human being as the mere tool of another. And though in practice it is sometimes more and sometimes less inlhuman, it is always a complete divestment of legal pro tection in the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of brotherhood in the human family.

So long as any one is held in slavery, others are prevented from discharging toward him the offices of neighbor and friend. Whatever instruction, sympathy, relief, protection, etc., the slave enjoys, is through the mere indulgence of the slaveholder. This not only deprives the slave of rights, but it is a standing prohibition to mankind, forbidding the performance of those duties to the slave which are enjoined in the second table of the law. He that would act the neighbor to the slave would expose himself to the severest penalties of the law. In the eye of the divine law it is a duty to receive and protect the fugitive slave; but in the eye of the slave laws it is a crime. It is true, the master, in some cases, nmay allow the slave to read the Bible, or others to read it for him; and yet he may not allow any such rights to remain to the slave. What right has any man to such power? The very possession of power to punish as a crime the duties and charities of life, is a restriction on the liberty of others to treat that slave as a man and a neighbor. No master allows the free discharge of the duties of hum2a 280

Page 281 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. brotherhood; and, indeed, no one can allow it without ceasing to be a slaveholder. (6.) The force of this law of human brotherhood is evaded by the false sentiment, that length of possession is considered by the laws as conferring right. But as a human being can not, without the greatest injustice, be seized as property, he can not, without equal wrong, be held and used as such. The wrong, in the first seizure, consists in the deprivation of rights and infliction of wrongs. The duration of these wrongs, and even the increase of them by continuance, only aggravates the evil. It is true that the length of possession, in some cases, may give a right where the goods were acquired by unlaw ful means. This may be the case in two respects: First, when the goods were such as could lawfully be applied to individual use. Now, a man can not be held thus as prop erty. The African on his own shore is a man, who by nature has a right to be free. The same right he has here and elsewhere. All men who are slaves are stolen property, and the use of them as property is wrong, and can never be right. Secondly, the difficulty of determining who is the original owner, and of unsettling all property, may sanction the mere possessor of lawful property to hold it. But this can not be the case in slavery; the proprietor of man can not be rendered doubtful by lapse of time; the true owner of every human being is himself.

No brand on the slave was ever so conspicuous as that mark which God has set on every man. Every man owns himself, and none other does own him except by gross wrong and injustice. Hence, no ri(ght accrues to the master from the length of the wrong which has been done to the slave. (7.) It may be asked here, is it lawful for a slave to desire the master who has purchased him, to liberate him by undergoing the loss of the purchase money? We answer that this is a lawful desire; because none have a 24* 281

Page 282 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. right to sell a man as a slave who has never forfeited his liberty, and, therefore, no one has a right to purchase him; and if a man has no right to purchase another, he has no right to hold him when purchased. It is easier for a man to endure the loss of a few hundred dollars, than it is for another to endure a whole life of bondage. Hence, when a man willingly holds another in bondage, merely because he has paid a certain price for him, he shows plainly that he does not love him as he does himself. The slaveholder would give all the money he could command, rather than be a slave during life; yet, for the sake of money, he will hold another in slavery during life. How absurd is his profession of loving him as himself! (8.) And such, too, was the law. The golden rule of Jesus Christ will apply strictly to the servitude authorized and defined by the law of Moses. This wi11 appear from the peculiar circumstances of their condition: 1. Servants bought of the heathen were most likely captives taken in wars, or persons convicted of crimes, or, more likely, poor persons who sold themselves, or rather their services. The Israelites could neither purchase kidnapped or stolen persons nor retain them in bondage, according to the law of Moses. 2. The heathen nations around the Jews would not likely kidnap or sell their own children, except such as were convicted of crimes, or those taken in wars.

3. The heathen servants were bettered in their condition by becoming the servants of the Jews, because they were admitted to all the privileges of the Jewish Church, as soon as they were prepared for it; and thus liberty was finally secured to themselves and their children forever. 4. If they did not comply with the rite of circumcision, yet their children were made free by circumcision, while the parents became free at the jubilee. 5. Any bad treatment to the servant firom the master secured his liberty. (Ex.

xii, 20-26; Lev. v, 22-26.) To prevent oppression, the 282

Page 283 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. servant who fled from his master was permitted to do so, and was entitled to his freedom. (Deut. xxiii, 15-17.) All bond-servants, hirelings, and sojourners among the Jews had all the profits arising from their lands, every seventh year. (Lev. xxv, 1-7.) It is, therefore, plain, that although there was servitude among the Jews, and although they had bondmen and bondmaids, they had no slaves among them. And all their laws concerning the servitude allowed, were in accordance with the law of reciprocal love and brotherhood. But such is not American slavery, for the law of reciprocal love would prevent its existence, and the application of it would soon utterly overturn it wherever it does exist. (9.) The teachings in the prophets, the same in character with those of Moses, were also hostile to slavery, and that, too, according to the principle of our Savior’s golden rule of practical love. “Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?” Isa. lviii, 6. We furnish the following practical instance of the working of the golden rule. A Mrs. Magruder, a lady of our acquaintance, who resides in Kentucky, twelve miles above Newport, was a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Her husband, during his lifetime, owned a number of slaves. MIost of them, during her husband’s life, were disposed of to those who took them to the south.

MIrs. Magruder had 9ne young man left. She was a devoted member of the Methodist Episcopal Church for many years. In 1845, when the subject of slavery came especially under consideration, she hecame convinced of the sinfulness of the system, and her duty to make reparation as far as in her power. Tlle slaves formerly sold were now beyond her reach. She accordingly emancipated her young man, and gave him fifty acres of valuable land. A neighbor of hers, who had 283

Page 284 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. joined the Church South, expostulated with her. He thought it strange that she now, in her old age, had changed her course from what it had been. She replied, that if she had been doing wrong all her days till then, it was now full time for her to change her, course and do better. He observed, that it was no harm to retain the negroes as slaves, as slavery was better for them than freedom. To this she replied as follows: “Brother, whenever you can believe it to be right that another should handcuff you so, [placing her hands across at the wrists,] and handcuff your wife and children, and then sell you all to separate masters, so that you should never see each other again, but spend your days in slavery-whenever you can truly say that all this would be right in reference to you, your wife, and children, then tell me slavery is right, but not before.” This was enough. Her neighbor had no answer which he could give. And Mrs. Magruder’s argument, founded on our Savior’s golden rule, will silence every slaveholder. No man ever met it, and no man ever will. And the operation of this rule on every heart would be the same as it was on Mrs. Magruder’s, were it received as it ought. With thousands it has prevailed, as might be shown from the many tens of thousands of emigrants now in the free states, who, under the solemn convictions of the wrongs and sinfulness of slavery, left the regions of oppression, and sought new homes in states where slavery has no existence.

The witnesses on this list may be called legion, because they are many. 4.

Slavery must be criminal, because it supersedes and necessarily excludes the duty of showing mercy to the poor. The Scripture makes it the duty of all, according to their abilities, to help the poor: “He that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he,” Prov. xiv, 21. “He that honoreth his Maker hath mercy on the poor,” Prov. xiv, 31. “He that 284

Page 285 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. hlath pity on the poor lendeth to the Lord,” Prov. xix, 17. And this pity does not consist of verbal expressions of compassion, but also in acts of relief. (James ii, 15.) But there is no class of persons so poor as slaves. And they are innoccntly poor; for their poverty has not been oc casioned by their own misconduct, but by unjust laws and arbitrary powers. If, then, slaveholders are justifiable in keeping their slaves in the most abject poverty and bondage, they can be under no obligation, by the law of God, to help the less poor and the less innocent. And if slaveholders are exempt from helping the poor in their distress, all others must be equally exempted; for one moral law equally binds all men; therefore, if slavery be right, all acts of charity to the poor may be neglected. BPesides, slaves are doubly poor. They are not only wanting in temporal supplies, in common with all other poor persons, but, as slaves, they are additionally poor in intellectual and religious privileges. The want of mental culture is the greatest of all wants, because it affects the eternal state of its subjects. Therefore, to aid the poor and needy heathen in different parts of the world, where the greatest poverty is a want of the knowledge of Christ, claims the attention of the enlightened and wealthy citizens of our country more than the poor in worldly substance. Now, if it be right for slaveholders to keep men as slaves, and, therefore, to keep them in bondage and ignorance, it can not be their duty to undergo the expense of sending the Gospel to the heathen. Consequently, to ask slaveholders to contribute to missions at all, is an insult to them, and a condemnation of their conduct. 5.

Slavery is opposed to the command, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise,” Ephl. vi, 1, 2. “Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord,” Col. iii, 20. 285

Page 286 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. Slavery, also, is opposed to the command to parents, which enjoin on them the duty of instructing, exercising discipline over, and controlling their own children: “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture [discipline] and admonition [instruction] of the Lord,” Eph. vi, 4. “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, [or kindred,] he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel,” 1

Tim. v, 8. Thus, children are commanded to “obey their parents in all things “-” to obey them in the Lord.” And parents are commanded to discipline and instruct their children, and to provide for them the means of subsistence. Slavery teaches, demands, and, by directly invading the divine law, secures, that the child is the property of the master, and that his parents have no control over him. The master displaces the father and mother from the place where God assigned them, and takes their place.

The father of the slave child has no command of his time, so that he can instruct his children, exercise discipline over them, or even pray with them. He can make no provision for his family. Slave children can not obey their parents. Slavery does not permit them to do so. The master entirely controls the children, and directs how their time and labor are to be regulated. The children are deprived of all interest in their parents.

They are not permitted to obey their parents during their minority, or to assist them when they arrive at manhood. The daughter has no right to obey her mother, nor assist her in any thing, except as the master may see fit to permit. As neither slave parents nor children have any rights at all, because they are mere goods and chattels, it is impossible they should obey the positive injunctions as heretofore quoted. According to the laws and customs of slavery, 286

Page 287 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. slave parents have no rights or duties at all over or in rela tion to their children; nor have the children any rights or duties in relation to their parents. Accordingly, they seldom exercise, or attempt to exercise, any such rights or duties. They are usually separated or sold firom each other forever, as the wants or wishes of the masters may call for. Let us now see how the practice is in the system of slavery, by presenting a few examples of the actual working of slavery. Here is a man, a slavetrader, driving before him two boys with a hickory stick, and carrying a child under his arm. At a little distance is the MOTHER with chains on her wrists, stretching out her hands toward the little babe; but is prevented, because a strong man holds her while she endeavors to follow her shrieking babe and her sobbing boys. The owner, who sold the two boys and child, stands calmly, unmoved, smoking a cigar, while the overseer holds the mother by mere might, and the trader whips off the boys and carries with him the screaming child, while the agonizing mother is kept for her good qualities as a breeder. A trader was about to start from Louisville, Kentucky, with one hundred slaves for New Orleans.

Among them were two women, with infants at the breast. Knowing that these infants would depreciate the value of the mothers, the trader sold them for one dollar each. Another mother was separated from her sick child, about four or five years old. Her anguish was so great that she sickened and died before reaching her destination. SIr. Birney gives the following narrative, which affords only mere specimens of every-day occurrences in slave communities: “Not very long ago, in Lincoln county, Kentucky, a female slave was sold to a southern slaver, under most afflicting circumstances. She had at her breast an infant 287

Page 288 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. boy three months old. The slaver did not want the child on any terms. The master sold the mother, and retained the child. She was hurried away immediately to the depot at Louisville, to be sent down the river to the southern market. The last news my informant had of her was, that she was lying sick, in the most miserable condition, her breasts having risen, inflamed, and bursted. “During the winter, at Nashville, a slaver was driving his train of fellow-beings down to the landing, to put them on board a steamboat, bound for New Orleans. A mother among them, having an infant of about ten months old to carry in her arms, could not keep pace with the rest. The slaver waited till she came up to where he was standing; he snatched it from her arms, and handing it over to a person who stood by, made him a present of it. The mother, bereft in a single moment of her last comfort, was driven on without delay to the boat.’ On the side of the oppressor was power; but she had no comforter.’”

(See Antislavery Record, vol. i, pp. 51, 52.) In Marion county, Missouri, a negro-trader was, not long ago, making up a drove for the Red river country. He purchased two little boys of a planter. They were to be taken away the next day. How did the mother of the children feel! To prevent her interference, she was chained in an out-house. In the night she contrived to get loose, took an ax, proceeded to the place where her [yes, her] boys slept, and severed their heads from their bodies! She then put an end to her own existence. The negro-trader and planter quarreled, and went to law, about the price! (Ibid., p. 97.) 6. Slavery is in opposition to several express commands of holy Scripture, addressed to husbands and wives. On this head we quote the following Scriptures: “The head of the woman is the man,” 1 Cor. xi, 3. “Wives, 288

Page 289 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it,” Eph. v, 22-25. “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself,”

verse 28. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband,” verses 31, 33. (See also Titus ii, 4; 1 Peter iii, 1.) Because slaves are property, they may be bought and sold like other property; and hence the code of slavery knows nothing of the relation of husband and wife, and therefore pays no attention to its privileges, obligations, or duties. For, as in procuring slaves originally, whether by conquest of war, kidnapping, or purchase, there is no regard paid to the relation of husband or wife, parent or child, so also in holding slaves, according to the slave code, no regard is had to the relation of husband or wife. All the laws of slavery are founded on the principle-no husband, no wife, no parent, no child. The master and the slave are the only names known to slavery. And when any benevolent persons, under the promptings of conscience or the plainest dictates of humanity, refuse to separate husbands and wvives, they act in direct opposition to the first principles of the slave code, and in spite of its demands. The master may entirely forbid marriage, or may dissolve it at pleasure. And if the master sometimes may have the will to respect marriage, the slave code, with its iron hand, prevents the execution of his purpose. Slaves, like other 25 289

Page 290 view page image

290 SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. property, may be taken by execution, sold for debt, and may, therefore, fall into the hands of the highest bidders, who may drive them to distant parts of the country, and separate them without reference to marriage obligations. When they fall into the hands of heirs, the same fate awaits them; and, indeed, many willfully execute the laws, and sell husbands and wives to different purchasers, without regard to the marriage state. But, even when the husband and wife are not separated from each other, there are duties and privileges belonging to husbands and wives, which slavery sets aside. From the texts we have quoted, we learn that wives are bound “to submit themselves to their own husbands, as unto the Lord;” “to be subject to their own husbands in every thing;” ” to reverence her husband.” While the husband is the “head of the wife,” he is “to love his wife;” “to love her as himself.” Now, slavery pays no regard to these requirements. The master, not the husband, possesses the supreme authority over both husband and wife. The master, too, can enforce obedience to his commands by any made of punishment he sees fit to adopt, with the exception of life and limb; and even over these his power extends, if he takes away the life, or breaks the limb, provided it is not done in the presence of white persons.

The power of the master over the slave wife extends to the employment of time, her food, clothing, domestic arrangements, her habitation, her comfort. The wife can not attend to her sick husband, nor the husband to his sick wife, except as the master ray allow it. As to the practice in this matter, we are at no loss to ascertain it. Most southern papers contain standing advertisements of slave-dealers, offering “cash and the highest price for likely young negroes, of both sexes, from twelve to twentyfive.” These can not be had without tearing asunder families. As a couple of specimens, we give the

Page 291 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. following from the great numbers of such as appear constantly in the southern papers: “Two hundred and fifty dollars reward.-Absconded from my estate in Goochland county, (Dover,) in August last, slave WASHINGTON, very active and sprightly. He was purchased of Mr. Lane’s estate in January, 1836, at George’s tavern, in Goochland; had been a waterman in James river for several years; is well known, and has a WIFE and other relations about Columbia and Cartersville, where it is believed he may now be found. I will pay a reward of $100 for his delivery to my manager, Dover, $50 if secured in any jail in Virginia, so that I may get him again, or $250 if taken out of the state and restored to me. “JOHN HETH, Richmond P.O. “January 30, 1837.” “Twentyfive dollars reward.-Ran away, my man CHARLES. His WIFE was carried off in April last by Mr. William Edwards, of Mississippi. The above reward, etc. “WILLIAM

JONES, Of Lambandy Grove, Mecklenburg, Va. “September 23, 1836.” In the slaveholding states, while droves of slaves are collecting for the more southern market, the public prisons are frequently crowded with parents and children, and husbands and wives, to be disposed of in the south to any purchaser. A petition, in former years, was presented to the Kentucky Legislature against this inhuman practice, and rejected. The following is a description of a drove, collected and driven by Stone and Kinningham, of Bourbon county, Kentucky. The description is from the pen of the Rev.

James H. Dickey, a pious and impartial Presbyterian minister, who met the drove before it entered Paris, Ky.: “In the summer of 1822, as I returned with my family from a visit to the Barrens of Kentucky, I witnessed a scene such as I never witnessed before, and such as I hope never 291

Page 292 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. to witness again. Having passed through Paris, in Bourbon county, Kentucky, the sound of music, beyond a little rising ground, attracted my attention; I looked forward, and saw the flag of my country waving. Supposing I was about to meet a military parade, I drove hastily to the side of the road; and, having gained the top of the ascent, I discovered, I suppose, about forty black men, all chained together after the following manner: Each of them was handcuffed, and they were arranged in rank and file. A chain perhaps forty feet long, the size of a fifth-horse-chain, was stretched between the two ranks, to which short chains were joined, which connected with the handcuffs. Behind them were, I suppose, about thirty women, in double rank, the couples tied hand to hand. A solemn sadness sat on every countenance, and the dismal silence of this march of despair was interrupted only by the sound of two violins; yes, as if to add insult to injury, the foremost couple were furnished with a violin apiece; the second couple were ornamented with cockades; while near the center waved the republican flag, carried by a hand literally in chains. I may have mistaken some punctilios of the arrangement, for ‘my soul was sick,’ my feelings were mingled and pungent.

As a man, I sympathized with suffering humanity; as a Christian, I mourned over the transgressions of God’s holy law; and, as a repuiblican, I felt indignant to see the flag of my beloved country thus insulted. I could not forbear exclaiming of the lordly driver, who rode at his ease along side,‘Heaven will curse that man who engages in such traffic, and the government that protects him in it.’ I pursued my journey till evening, and put up for the night. When I mentioned the scene I had witnessed,‘Ah!’

cried my landlady,‘that is my brother.’ From her I learned that his name is Stone, of Bourbon county, Kentucky, in partnership with one Kinningham, of Paris; and that a few days before he had purchased a negro woman from a man 292

Page 293 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. in Nicholas county; she refused to go with him; he attempted to compel her, but she defended herself. Without farther ceremony he stepped back, and, by a blow on the side of her head with the but of his whip, brought her to the ground; he tied her, and drove her off. I learned farther, that besides the drove I had seen, there were about thirty shut up in the Paris prison for safekeeping, to be added to the company, and that they were designed for the Orleans market.

And to this they are doomed for no other crime than that of a black skin and curled locks. ‘Ah me, what wish can prosper or what prayer, For merchants rich in cargoes of despair? Who drive a loathsome traffic, guage and span, And buy the muscles and the bones of man.’ (Cowper.) “Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this? “But I forbear, and subscribe myself yours, “JAMES H. DICKEY. “September 30, 1824.” The following is the testimony of the Rev. A. Rankin, a Tennesseean by birth and education, and brother of Rev. John Rankin, so well known for his strong antislavery feelings. The speech was delivered in Pittsburg, in 1835. MIr. Rankin said: “But we are told,‘You at the north know nothing of slavery-why meddle with what you do not understand?’ Sir, we do know what slavery is. It is usurped authority-a system of legalized oppression. If we could show what is this moment transpiring in the land of slavery, every bosom in this house would thrill with horror. I will state a case: A minister of the Gospel owned a female slave, whose husband was owned by another man in the same neighborhood. The husband did something supposed to be an offense sufficient to justify his master in selling him for the southern market.

As he started, his wife 293 r ,2,5

Page 294 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. obtained leave to visit him. She took her final leave of him, and started to return to her master’s house. She went a few steps, and returned and embraced him again, and then started the second time to go to her master’s house; but the feelings of her heart overcame her, and she turned about and embraced him the third time. Again she endeavored to bear up under the heavy trial, and return; but it was too much for her-she had a woman’s heart. She returned the fourth time, embraced her husband, and turned about-A MANIAC. To judge what slavery is, we must place ourselves in the condition of the slave. Who that has a wife, who that has a husband, could endure for a moment the thought of suchI a separation! Take another case: A company of slave-dealers wvere passing through Louisville with a drove of slaves, of all classes and descriptions. Among them were many mothers wvithl infants in their arms.

These often became troublesome to the drivers: and in this case, in order to get rid of the trouble, the inhuman monsters severed the cords of maternal affection, and took these infants, from three to five months old, and sold them in the streets of Louisville, for what they could get. Do we know nothing of slavery? Can we shut our eyes to such facts as these, which are constantly staring us in the face?” (See Antislavery Record, vol. i, p. 81.) 7. Slavery is at variance with those commands in holy Scripture which enjoin the propagation of knowledge by some, and the receiving of it by others. We are commnanded to “search the Scriptures,”

John v, 39. But slavery utterly prohibits the slaves from obeying it. For no slave is permitted to read, under the severest penalties; nor is any one permitted to instruct him, under similar penalties. We are commanded to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good,” 1 Thess. v, 21. It is impossible to obey this command in its letter or spirit, to) any extent, unless he has the possession and use of all his natural rights, 294

Page 295 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. personal security, personal liberty, and private property, in their fullest extent; that is, unless he is a free moral agent. Slavery effectually prohibits the slaves from obeying such commands. Indeed, the religion of heaven, whether in its Jewish or Christian edition, is a great system of light and knowledge. And its tendency and design are to inculcate knowledge among all classes of mankind. It brings down none from a state of intellectual and moral elevation; while its great work is to raise all to virtue and knowledge.

The state of slavery is, therefore, in direct hostility to the commands and, indeed, provisions contained in holy Scripture, the end of which is to enlighten mankind; while slavery prohibits all this, and by this means sets itself up against God, his light and his truth. 8. It is the duty of the slave to aim at freedom. “Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men,” 1 Cor. vii, 21, 23. Here it is declared, that freedom is preferable to slavery; and yet, that the deliverance of the soul from sin is of greater importance than civil freedom. Yet, the command is clear, Et xZC 8vvasa(-if thou mayest, or, rather, if thou canst, if thou art able to become free-that if it was in the power of the slave to become free, he was to avail himself of the privilege. If the laws or his master set him free-if he could purchase his freedom, or some one do it for him-if in any way, not sinful, he could become free-he was to avail himself of the advantage. The command in the 23d verse, “be not ye the servants of men,” is equally plain. There are no such commands uttered in regard to the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, as are here given in regard to slavery. No one is thus urged to dissolve the marriage relation. No such commands are given to relieve children from obedience to their parents, or b 295

Page 296 view page image

296 SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. to exempt parents from bringing up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, and of providing temporal supplies for them. It is, therefore, an error to maintain that the relation between master and slave is of the same obligation as the relation between child and parent, husband and wife, master and servant. The relation between master and servant is a voluntary one, founded in the necessities of mankind, and.is mutually beneficial to both. But slavery is a perversion of just servitude. Slavery originates in robbery and violence, and is continued by acts of injustice and violence, and can not exist without the infliction and endurance of the greatest wrongs. Servitude is the voluntary act of the person who serves. God sanctions voluntary servitude, but he never did and never can sanction slavery; because they are essentially different in their origin, and in their nature, and in their results. The one is formed by the mutual agreement of the employer and employed, for a stipulated consideration, and for the mutual benefit of each; while the other is an act of theft or of robbery on the one part, and of cruel divestment of rights, and infliction of wrongs on the other part. The servant is free; the slave is not free. The servant has wages; the slave has no wages. The children of the servant are free, while the children of the slave follow the condition of the mother. In short, slavery originated in sin, is continued by sin, and ends in the constant involvement of sin to the very last.* None who are duly enlightened on slavery will ever contend, except sophistically, that the relation of parent and child, of husband and wife, of master and servant, are the same with, or even similar to, the relation between the master and slave. This is put beyond all doubt, by Judge * See Cornelius a Lapide on 1 Cor. vii, 24, where the curious exposition of Chrysostom and others are referred to. Also the decisions of Constantine ad Concilium Toletani, iv c., 64.

Page 297 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. Ruffin, of North Carolina, in his decision of the case, The State vs. Mann. He authoritatively decides as follows: “The established habits and uniform practice of the country in this respect, are the best evidence of the portion of power deemed by the whole community requisite to the preservation of the master’s dominion. If we thought differently, we could not set our notions in array against the judgment of every body else, and say that this or that authority may be safely lopped off. This has, indeed, been assimilated at the bar to the other domestic relations; and arguments drawn from the well-established principles, which confer and restrain the authority of the parent over the child, the tutor over the pupil, the master over the apprentice, have been pressed on us. The Court does not recognize their application. There is no likeness between the cases. They are in opposition to each other, and there is an impassable gulf between them. The difference is that which exists between freedom and slavery-and a greater can not be imagined. In the one, the end in view is the happiness of the youth, born to equal rights with that governor on which the duty devolves of training the youth to usefulness, in a station which he is afterward to assume among freemen.

To such an end and with such a subject, moral and intellectual instruction seem the natural means, and for the most part they are found to suffice.

Moderate force is superadded, only to make the others effectual. If that fail, it is better to leave the party to his own headstrong passions, and the ultimate corrections of the law, than to allow it to be immoderately inflicted by a private person. With slavery it is far otherwise. The end is the profit of the master, his security, and the public safety. The subject is doomed, in his own person and his posterity, to live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits. What moral considerations shall be addressed 297

Page 298 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS. to such a being, to convince him what it is impossible but that the most stupid must feel and know can never be true, that he is thus to labor upon a principle of natural duty or for the sake of his own personal happiness. Such services can only be expected from one who has no will of his own-who surrenders his will in implicit obedience to that of another. Such obedience is the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over the body. There is nothing else can operate to produce the effect. The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect. I most freely confess my sense of the harshness of this proposition. I feel it as deeply as any man can. And, as a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it; but in the actual condition of things it must be so. There is no remedy. This discipline belongs to the state of slavery. They can not be disunited without abrogating at once the rights of the master, and absolving the slave from his subjection. It constitutes the curse of slavery to both the bond and free portions of our population. But it is inherent in the relation of master and slave. That there may be particular instances of cruelty and deliberate barbarity, where in conscience the law might properly interfere, is most probable.” (Wheeler’s Law of Slavery, pp. 245, 246.) 298

Page 299 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. CHAPTER III. SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL

PRINCIPLES AND PRIVILEGES. SLAVERY is contrary to many Scriptural principles and p,vrivileyes, which secure to the whole race of man certain rights which can not be invaded without guilt and wrong. 1. Slavery is contrary to the original grant which God gave to man at the creation, as the original charter gave no grant of property in man. This grant is contained in the following words: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Bellold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat,” Gen. i, 28, 29. This grant is recognized and reasserted to the human race after the flood. (Gen. ix, 1, 2.) It is referred to and repeated by the Psalmist as the established truth of God, still unrepealed, and never to be repealed: “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas,” Psalm viii, 5-8. This is the original charter on which the right of all property is founded.

WSlavery contradicts this grant in two respects: first, by one portion of the human family claiming and securing another portion of the human family as property; and secondly, by depriving that portion of mankind of their right to enjoy 299

Page 300 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. a portion of the common property bestowed on the whole race of mankind. (1.) Slavery is at variance with this original grant, because some claim property in others, and exercise the dominion vested in property over them. We no where find that God has given the Saxon a right of property in the Indian or African-the rich and powerful in the poor and defenseless. God only is the lawful despotes-the lord, or possessor of unlimited authority over all mankind. The human despotes, or slaveholder, claims a power which alone can belong to almighty God. No such dominion of man over man, or property in man, was granted to man, such as the dominion and property of man in the earth and its productions; and in the renewal of this grant to Noah, and in the repetition of it by the Psalmist, there is no such grant of man in man recognized. Indeed, there are many Scriptural declarations, denouncing any such claims, and pronouncing them to be robbery, manstealing, violence, oppression, and condemning all these acts as truly sinful: “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death,” Ex. xxi, 16; and when God gave all mankind a right of property in inanimate and irrational creatures, he declares that one man has no right of property in the person of another. (2.) Slavery is at issue with this original grant of property in irrational and inanimate creatures to all men, because it deprives the portion who are enslaved of their just portion: 1. It deprives the slaves of the right of being fruitful in a lawful way, by separating husbands and wives, and dividing and scattering families. 2. Slavery is a usurpation of that great origrinal charter from God-of all the gifts of Providence to all mankind; for it monopolizes the whole to the slaveholders themselves, and robs the slaves of their just rights. 3. God gave the grant of the whole earth to all mankind, to be possessed and enjoyed; 300

Page 301 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. but slavery robs a great part of mankind of this right. It prevents them from the right of property in the earth or its productions. All men, in virtue of the original grant, which is still the unrepealed law of God, have a moral right to possess property of their own by such ways as the moral law and just civil regulations sanction; but slanvery cuts off the slave from this provision, by declaring, in opposition to the law of God, “that slaves have no legal rights of property in things real or personal; and whatever property they may acquire belongs, in point of law, to their masters.” (Stroud, pp.

45-50.) Slavery is, therefore, the complicated crime of avarice and robbery-avarice, in monopolizing the land and other property of our neighbors; and robbery, in doing it by violence, without the shadow of justice. 2. Slavery sinks the divine image of God, in which man was created, to the level of brutality. Of all the creatures which God created, he impressed his own image upon none except man. The creation of man was the subject of particular deliberation, so to speak, in the Godhead: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” Gen. i, 26, 27. In Gen. v, 1, we find it again: “In the likeness of God made he him.” This image consisted of knowledge, righteous ness, and true holiness. (Eph. iv, 24.) And because mall was created in the image of God, no satisfaction could be taken for the life of a murderer: ” Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man,” Gen. ix, 6. So in Lev. xxiv, 17, 18, 21, “He that killeth any man shlall surely be put to death; 26 301

Page 302 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. and he that killeth a beast shall make it good, beast for beast; and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.” The attempt, however fruitless, to destroy the image of God in man, is an indirect attack on God himself-on his being and on his sovereignty. How wicked, then, is it, to degrade the image of God in man, by sinking man into the degradation of a brute! God made man only a little lower than the angels; but slavery associates him with the beasts. God “crowned man with glory and honor;” but slavery tears off the crown of honor and glory, and places him under the yoke. God made man to have “dominion over the works of his hands;” but slavery casts him down among or beneath those works. God “put all things under his feet;” but slavery puts man under the feet of his owner. Man is a rational, moral, immortal being, because created in God’s image. He is, therefore, the child or son of God, because created to unfold Godlike faculties, and to govern himself by a divine law, written on his heart and republished in his word.

Thought, reason, intelligence, conscience, the capacity of virtue, the capacity of Christian love, immortality, the idea and obligation of duty, the perception of truth, the hope of happiness, the capacity of endless improvement-all these moral and intellectual attributes declaring a moral connection with God, reduce to insignificance all outward distinctions, and make every human being unspeakably dear to his Creator. The capacity of improvement allies the most ignorant to the more instructed of his race, and places within his reach the knowledge and happiness of the higher world. Such a being was not made to be a thing. He is a person-not a thing. But slavery fights against the image of God in man. It first unmans him by maling him a thing of mere property as far as possible. It can not unman him so far as to de prive him of immortality, or totally imbrute him, and in its 302

Page 303 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. ragie to undo him wholly, but is compelled, while endeavor ing, to make him a chattel or thing, to call him a “chattel personal,” because God himself hath set limits to man’s wickedness, so that he “can not kill the soul,” though he may imbrute the body and crush the spirit within man. It is needless here to enlarge.

Slavery degrades and attempts to efface the moral image of God from man, consisting of knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. The slave holder may feed and clothe the body to preserve its health, and thereby secure the more labor. He may even so far cultivate mind as to give profitable direction to the bodily powers, that they may profit him the more. Here is the utmost limit of slavery. The intellectual powers are crushed, and the master slave state, South Carolina, denounces “all mental improvement in slaves.” And this is the first law of the code of slavery every-where, and it can never be changed till slavery is destroyed. All the morality of the decalogue is set aside by slavery; and if any of it lives among the slaves, it is because there are some slaveholders who, in spite of the system, do much to counteract it, by acknowledging the ten commandments as obligatory on themselves and their slaves, and promoting the practice of them as they can. A volume would not contain the atrocities of slavery, as it operates against the image of God in man alone, to say nothing of its other legion sins. 3. All men are redeemed by the same blood of Christ; and therefore, this common and general redemption by the blood of Christ is at variance with slavery. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” John iii, 16. This redemption is so extensive as to reach, in its provisions and influence, to all and every one of the human family, in the past, present, and all future generations of men. The efficacy of his sacrifice reached backward to the fall of man, as well as to 303

Page 304 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. the end of time. Christ is the atonement for the sins of the world. Hence John the Baptist calls him “the Lamb of God which taketh away tlhe sin of the world.” He is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” Rev. xiii, 8; “Who verily was foreordained tporvw;,AEvoVforeknown-before the foundation of the world.”

Redemption of the race of man through the sacrifice of Christ is antagonistic to slavery. Almighty God delivered the Israelites from bondage, because such a state was incompatible with the true interests of man; and the Hebrews were commanded expressly not to allow slavery among themselves: “For they [the Hebrews] are my servants, which I have brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondsmen,” Lev.

xxv, 42; and the servitude which God ordained to the Hebrews, whether among themselves or with other nations, was not slavery; for it differed from slavery in all the elements which consti tute slavery. St. Paul, too, declares, that slavery is opposed to redemp tion: “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men,” 1 Cor. vii, 23. There are many evils, snares, dangers, and disabilities inseparable from a state of slavery. Civil slavery is utterly unbecoming the freed man of Christ: “For ye are bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s,” 1 Cor. vi, 20. Christians, even in their bodies, are represented as “‘the temple of God,” 1 Cor. iii, 16, 17; and “the temple of the living God,” 2 Cor. vi, 16; and “the temple of the Holy Ghost,” 1 Cor. vi, 19; plainly showing, that Chris tians are consecrated to God. They are, therefore, as the redeemed creatures of God, to “glorify God in their body,” by temperance, chastity, and purity; and “in their spirit.” by faith, hope, and love-humility, resignation, patience by meekness, gentleness, long-suffering, and universal benev olence. The privileges of redemption elevate men to the 304

Page 305 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. high moral station of “kings and priests unto God,” Rev. v, 9, 10, with the exercise of which slavery continually in terferes. The same great sacrifice has been made for the slave as for the master; and therefore, the soul of the slave is worth as much as the soul of the master. As a redeemed sinner an heir of heaven-the slave is equal to his master. lie has the same right to forsake his sins, repent, believe, pray, worship God, practice all the duties of religion, enjoy all its privileges-as marriage, government of his children and his house, etc.-as his master has. All this is indisputable, from the privileges of redemption; in consequence of which the slave is entitled to employ his body and soul in God’s service, and to enjoy all the means of grace. But slavery takes no cognizance of its victims as the redeemed creatures of God. It exposes them to sale, robbery, deprivations, and cruel treatment. It forbids them to read or to learn to read. Its code puts their time, conscience, body, and soul into the hands of an oppressor; and all the duties, privileges, and advantages flowing from redemption are neither known, heeded, nor provided for, in the code of American slavery. If some slavehlolders treat their slaves differently from this, no thanks to slavery for this. And how can any Christian, who has himself partaken of the benefits of redemption, hold another C~tristian brother in bondage, regard him as property, sell him to others, break up his domestic relations, or interfere with any of his rights as a husband, father, son, Christian? Where is the riyiht, authtority, or vwarrant, from the word of God, by which one Christian holds another as )rtoperty? Where is his right to sell him or keep him, to transfer him, by contract or will, to others, to appropriate the avails of his labor to his own use, to regulate exactly his manner of living, to separate him from his wife, and children, and 26* 305

Page 306 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. home, and to determine the times and seasons, if any, when he may worship God? There is no warrant for such treatment of a fellow-Christian, or a human being, derived from the word of God. Indeed, the early Christians very generally deemed it repugnant to Christianity, for any Christian to hold another in slavery, basing their argument on the declaration of Paul: “Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men.” Accordingly, Contantine the Great, in 330, made a decree that no Jew or Pagan should retain a Christian as a slave. (See lib. i, Codicis, tit. Ne Christianum, etc.) And the three sons of Constantine confirmed and continued the same law. (Sozomen, lib. iii, c.

17.) Gregory the Great did the same. (Greg. Mag., lib. iii, Epist. 9.) The Council of Toledo enacted similar laws. (Concil. Toletani, iv, c. 64.) Aquinas speaks approvingly of these laws. (Aquinas Sum. Thleologic, 2, 2, q. 10, ar. 10.) (See Cornelius a Lapide on 1 Cor. vii, 22.) 4. Slavery is a usurpation of Divine right. Man is responsible to God for the use of his powers. It is true, we may exercise our powers under such limitations as still leave us at liberty to govern them by a supreme regard to the will of God. A more absolute control than this over us, by any human being, is subversive of the rights of the Divine government. Such is the power of the slaveholder, by which the will of the slave is subjected, on pain of fearful penalties, to the absolute dictation of his master. “A slave is one who is in the power of a master, to whom lie belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but what must belong to his master.” (Louisiana Civil Code, art. 35.) The claim of slavery equals the claim of God. It claims the whole man-his soul, body, and strength-all he can possess, all he can acquire. The slave may be legally 306

Page 307 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES, required to sin against God, by restraining prayer and exhortation, by whipping his parents, by lying, by Sabbathbreaking, by adultery; and, in case of refusal, he may be doomed to excruciating pain. It is that despotic power which can not be exercised without oppression, and which it is sinful to confer on any other; or to hold it, except under protest, with the purpose of getting rid of it as soon as possible. It never can be exercised without sin. And, if conferred by law, it can never be held except so far as to hold it in view of getting rid of it for the benefit of the oppressed. No one can long, if at all, hold this power without exercising it. And the exercise of it interferes with the freedom of conscience and moral agency, by forcibly detaining another in a condition where the duties of parents, children, friends, citizens, Christians, etc., can not be freely and fully discharged. Whatever liberty may be allowed a slave, hlie must suffer restraint in regard to plans of prospective duty, enjoyment, and usefulness. Yet, were the slaveholder’s power not employed to involve the slave in the commission of sin or the omission of duty, the possession of such power is usurpation; it is holding Divine power, or it is exercising the prerogative of God. It is placing man in complete dependence on the will of his fellow, and holding him under legal liability to be forced against his conscience and his duty. It is putting one man in the place of God to another, as far as this can be done, than which no sin can be greater. And whenever this fearful power is conferred by law on a person without his knowledge or consent, he can not exercise the power without sin, or even retain it except under protest-that he can not hold it, much less exercise it, except so long as legally to get rid of it. 5. The system of slavery is contrary to the natural equality of mankind. The Bible teaches this equality. “God hath made of 307

Page 308 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts xvii, 26. And Malachi asks, “Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?” Mal. ii, 10. (See, also, Job xxi, 15.) Here is established the unity and sameness of human nature, wherever men are found, and whatever their varieties may be. There are as many distinct persons as there are individuals in the human family; but there is only one nature in all. Human nature is a unit, and all possess it in common. Hence, all men are born equal, and have equal natural rights. No man, according to God’s law, can be born either the lord or the slave of another. The Declaration of Independence, the echo of Scripture in this matter, declares, “All men are created free and equal.” Hence, all men are entitled to their natural rights, of personal liberty, personal security, and the right of holding property; although these very rights are withheld from nearly three millions of human beings, who live under the flag of liberty. This declaration of human equality, borrowed from the Bible, does not mean that all men possess equal wealth or learning; that the parent shall have no right to the services of the child; that the wife shall not be in subjection to her husband. This equality, according to the plain dictates of common sense, means, that all men, in coming into the world and going through it, have an equal opportunity to exercise all their own powers of body and mind for their own happiness; that one parent shall have as good a right to the services of his own children as any other shall have to the services of his children; that every wife shall be in subjection to her own husband, and to no one else; and that no man shall be deprived of his liberty for an alleged crime, “without due process of law.” The natural equality of mankind is one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, on which the whole system 308

Page 309 view page image

SLAVERY VS. SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES. is based, and which sends its influence into all parts of the svstem. One of the fundamental doctrines of slavery, that one class of men is superior to another, is at variance with this Scripture doctrine. On this ground Aristotle maintaimed slavery. And the doctrine of the essential equality of mankind, will prove fatal to slavery: that all men have one common father, that the same blood flows in all human veins, that all are redeemed by the blood of Christ, that all are partakers alike of Christian privileges, that all are bound to perform the same Christian duties, that all are heirs to the same everlasting inheritance-these great truths, flowing from the equality of human nature, are directly subversive of slavery, and at no distant day they will overthrow it. 6. Slavery is contrary to the end or chief good of man, which is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. As slavery so places men under the complete dominion of a master, that the slaves are not at liberty to dispose of their time for the service of God or the enjoyment of him, they are prevented from the exercise of reading,, meditation, and prayer. God commands all men to seek and exercise religion. But the slave is bound to submit to the master’s authority, come what will. The slaveholder’s power is exercised over the private relative duties of the slave, without being controlled by the laws of government. The usurpation of that power constitutes the sin of slavery. The cruel administration of that power is only an aggravation of that crime. The grand reason why a tyrant should be deposed, is not merely because his administration is cruel, but because he has usurped the power which knows neither bounds nor restraints. Now, this power interferes with or even frustrates the great end of man’s being-to glorify God and enjoy him. 309

Page 310 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. CHAPTER IV. TIIE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAYERY.

SLAVERY involves a breach of all the ten commandments. It breaks the first, second, third, fourth, and ninth indi rectly, and the other five directly. God requires of man obedience to his revealed will, which is comprised in the moral law. “The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man; promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, the first four commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.” “For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: ” 1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man to the righteousness thereof, and to entire obedience forever, so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. “2.

That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understand: ing, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul, as well as works and gestures. “3. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. “4. That as, where a duty is commanded the contrary sin is forbidden, and where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is commanded, so where a promise is annexed the 810

Page 311 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. contrary threatening is included, and where a threatening is annexed the contrary promise is included. “5. That what God forbids is at no time to be done; what he commands is always our duty; and yet every par ticular duty is not to be done at all times. ” 6. That under one sin or duty all of the same kind arcforbidden or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereto. ” 7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.

“8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them, and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith on the Ten Commandments.) The sum of the first four commandments, containing our duty to God, is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind. The sum of the other six commandments, which contain our duty to man, is, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do to others as we would have them do to us. Now, let us see how slavery, in its laws, judicial decisions, and the lawful practice under these laws and decisions, will bear the test of the ten commandments. We maintain that slavery-theoretical and practical slavery-is a violation of every commandment of the decalogue; the first four and ninth indirectly, and the other five directly. 1. Slaverv is a breach of the first commandment. This commandment requires, that we know and acknowledge God to be the only true God, and to worship and glorify him accordingly. Now, slavery necessarily prevents the 311

Page 312 view page image

312 THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. slaves from the means of knowing God as the living and true God, and restrains or prevents them from worshiping and serving God. The master, in holding man as property, assumes the place of God, because his authority comes in superior to the obligations of God’s law; so that he can restrain the slave firom all those duties which the law of God requires of him, such as the time of worshiping God, the duty of taking time and using means to read his word, in order that he may know how to discharge his duty to God. This usurping the place of God is not only unjust and cruel, but it is an affront to the majesty of God. It is of no weight to say, that some individuals do not restrain their slaves from the means of knowledge; for involuntary, unmerited, hereditary slavery, of necessity, requires the means of knowledge to be withheld from the slaves; and it is notorious that slaves generally are kept in the most degraded ignorance. Therefore, slavery is a violation of the first commandment, because the master usurps the place of God, and claims the first reverence of the slave. Besides, the ignorance of the slaves renders them incapable of distinguishing that real Christianity which produces gentleness, meekness, temperance, from that which they see in their masters. And hence they may be led to conclude that Christianity is a system of error and cruelty. And, probably, this is one of the causes which prevents many of them from attending public worship, when they are allowed to do so. Nevertheless, in justice it must be admitted that many slaves are truly religious. But, then, this is not owing in any way to slavery, but in spite of it. God inclines the hearts of some masters to grant certain privileges to their slaves. And when this is not done, God preserves witnesses to his religion among them, amidst all the privations and disabilities which wicked masters impose. Yet, their

Page 313 view page image

TIlE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. Christianity, where it ever does exist in its genuine character, can not be so mature as if no slavery had thrown in its disabilities. And still, all things considered, Christianity has done very much more than all other things to benefit and enlighten the slave.

So that in spite of all the disabilities of the cruel and wicked slave laws, true religion has so far gained that the very system of slavery is tottering to its foundation under the light and power of Christianity. 2.

Slavery involves the breach of the second commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” etc. As the first commandment comprehends particularly whatever pertains to the internal worship of God, the second comprehends whatever appertains to the external worship of God.

It comprises partaking of sacraments, attending to God’s ordinances, and performing those holy duties he has required from us to his glory, the edification of others, and our own salvation; it enjoins a free, open, and undaunted profession of the truth, a religious vowing to God, a diligent reading of the word of God, and a constant and reverent attendance on it when read or preached. And God has no less enjoined his external worship than his internal; and he requires the worship of the soul and body; of the soul as the chief seat of worship, and of the body as the best testimony of it. The slave has no power to worship God in the practical use of his word and ordinances; nor power to command his own children or household, but through the permission of his master. If the slave worship God at all, or teaches his family, it must be according to the sovereign will of his master. Now, slavery excludes the slave from the means of knowing the true God and his ordinances, and prevents the possibility of his keeping pure and entire such religious ordinances as he has appointed ill his word, by monopolizing 313 27

Page 314 view page image

THIE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. all the slave’s time to himself, without allowing him either leisure or means to know the will of God, or to render that worship and reverence to him which his word requires. Therefore, slavery is a breach of the second commandment, and consequently sinful.

Slavery approaches close to sacrificing to an idol, or false God. The idol is riches. The sacrifice is the temporal and eternal happiness of the slaves. The heathens offered up human sacrifices, which did not affect the eternal interests of the victims; but slavery affects both the temporal and eternal interests of man, and seems to be a crime much worse than heathen idolatry. Nor is the prevention of knowledge an abuse of slavery, but it is essential to its existence. Indeed, the education of slaves is an abuse of slavery, because it tends to bring about their emancipation, and put an end to the practice.:But slavery could not bear the expense of the time, labor, and necessary outlays of education; for slaveholders can have no profits, except what arise from extortion, or the privations of education, food, and clothing. 3. Slavery involves the breach of the third commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

This commandment requires that the name of God, his titles, attributes, word, ordinances, sacraments, etc., be liolily and reverently used in thought, word, and act. The ignorance of the slaves prevents the slaves from knowing properly the character of God, or performing the duties they owe him, in order to worship him agreeably to his word. This commandment forbids the abuse and unnecessary use of the name of God; but thie ignorance of slaves is the occasion of profanity in the lives and conversation of slaves, so that they become addicted to profane swearing and cursing. 314

Page 315 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. Besides, the practice of slaveholding is a breach of the sacramental vowvs of baptism and the Lord’s supper; for these vows bind all, with the solemnity of an oath, to love their neilghbor as themselves, and to do to others as they would others slhoud do to them. 4. Slavery promotes the breach of the fourth commandment, which is, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” As the slave is properly amenable to no law, except the will of his master, if he chooses to obey the law of God for conscience’s sake, the master may punish him severely; so that the slave may be compelled to break the Sabbath. If hlie refuse positively to obey his master, in this, he can have no adequate protection from the laws of the slave states. It is true, however, that the laws will not give positive protection to a master, in compelling slaves to work on the Sabbath; yet, as the testimony of colored persons will not be taken in slave states, the master may compel the slave to violate the Sabbath, or break any other precept of the moral law. Many slaveholders compel their slaves to labor in the field on the Sabbath.

Others, by scanty allowance of food and clothing, compel them to labor on the Sabbath for their support; and domestic slaves, to a very great extent, are employed in serving their masters or families on the Sabbath; and thus their Sabbath privileges are very fevw. Add to this, the ignorance of slaves in regard to God’s word, his doctrines, moral precepts, promises, economy of grace, greatly disqualify them from keepingr the Sabbath; hence, the breach of the Sabbath is a necessary consequence of slavery. 5. The practice of slavery is a breach of the fifth commau-dment, which is, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” This commandment teaches the duties of parents to children, and the duties of children to parents. One of the principal duties of parents to children is, to 315

Page 316 view page image

TIIE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. instruct them in the knowledge of God’s word, the doetrines of religion, and the way of salvation through Christ.

“T’rain up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old hlie will not depart from it,” Prov. xxii, 6. “And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teachl them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up,” Dcut. vi, 6-8. The duties of parents comprise providing for the temporal good of children, in furnishling protection and provision of the necessaries and convenienices of life, and in preparing them for performing the duties of after ]ife. Mor their spiritual good parents should educate their childr.en in the principles of religion, discipline them in its pratctic,’, and precepts, and leave them a good example. On the other hand, children are bound to reverence and love their parents, obey them in all things in the Lord, provide for them in sickness, poverty, and old age, receive their good instructions, and imitate their good examples. Slavery pays no regard to these reciprocal duties of parents and children. The parent is not permitted to instruct, command, or train up his children. The children are not permitted to obey or reverence their parents. Slavery does this, by transferring to the master the authority and place of the parents over their children, and the right obedience of children to their parents. Thus the authority of the master rises above the moral law, as it relates to tihe duties of parents to children and of children to parents. Slavery goes beyond the furthest extent of the civil power; for the civil power claims no authority over the private rights and duties of citizens; so that a slavehlolder is a tyrant or despot of the worst kind. A government founded on equity depends upon the power delegated to civil rulers from the people) which can 316 o -.1I I 11

Page 317 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. niot interfere with the private rights or private relative duties of the people, for these private rights and duties can not be transferred to representatives. But a government founded on despotism, without the consent of the people, usurps a power over the community, to command them at pleasure; and yet even despotism rarely intermeddles with the private rights and duties of citizens. The slaveholder, as to his usurpation of power, ranks with the worst of tyrants; but in the administration of that power he far exceeds the tyrant. Hence, slavery is a flagrant breach of the fifth commandment; nor will any thing that can be said under the head of the relation of master and servant overturn this conclusion, because servant and slave are as different in their meaning, in common acceptation, as any two words can be. The servant is one who voluntarily consents to serve another for wages. The slave is one who is in the power of his master, and is always made a slave by theft or robbery, and receives no wages from his master; and though there are duties enjoined on slaves, in reference to their masters, they are such duties as are enjoined on Christians toward persecutors, or those who maltreat them; or if there are duties even enjoined oni slaves and their masters reciprocally, they are such as would terminate immediately or shortly in the emancipation of the slave. Where are rules and duties laid down respecting the just and religious mode of stealing or robbing men? Not in Scripture. On the other hand, the very acts by which slaves are made such, or continued such, are capital offenses, and to be punished with death. lie that stealeth a man, or sells a stolen man, or retains a stolen man in his possession, is to be put to death. The moral sense of British and American laws have so decided, in pronouncing the man a pirate, and therefore worthy of death, who steals, robs, or sells men. The application of the same Scriptural rule against theft and robbery would do the same 27* 317

Page 318 view page image

THiE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. with every man who now voluntarily buys, sells, or holds children in slavery; and this is the crying sin of the United States; for, as far as the slaves are concerned, it is the same to them, whether their mothers were firee or bond, when they are violently seized, as soon as born, and are feloniously, violently, and barbarously enslaved. 6. Slavery is a direct violation of the sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” The slave laws neither protect sufficiently the lives of the slaves nor inflict punishment, to any efficient extent, on those who take away the lives of slaves. In North Carolina “any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in the swvamps.” (Stroud, p. 103.) By a law of South Carolina “a slave endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions, etc., be prepared for the purpose of aiding in such running away, shall be punished with death; and a slave who shall aid the slave so endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, shall also suffer death.” (Stroud, pp. 103, 104.) Another law of the same state provides, “that, if a slave, when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by any white person, such white person may seize and chastise him; and if the slave shall strike such white perso.n, such slave may be lawfully killed.” According to the Georgia laws, if a slave shall strike a white person, for the first offense hlie may be punished so as to save life and limb, and for the second offense the penalty is death; and the instances of death inflicted violently, under the rule of “moderate correction,” would make a long list indeed, provided they were collected. The following items will present the murderous character in its true, though not an exaggerited, light: (1.) Slavery is founded onl violence, to which unless he submit, the slave would be liable to suffer death; that is, he would be beaten and abused, in order to compel him to 318

Page 319 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. submit; and should he continue to refuse, the floggings, mutilations, and various modes of punishments, must termninate in death. Therefore, slavery is founded on, and exists by, murder; and murder is essential to its existence. The robber, who spares life on condition of obtaining money, is a murderer in the sight of God.

(2.) Slavery is continued by murderous measures and acts. If slaves attempt to run away themselves, or aid others to run away, they are murdered outright, unless they can be captured. If they attempt to emancipate themselves by force, death would be their portion, according to the laws of the slave states; so that murder is necessary to continue slavery. (3’.) Murder is not only theoretically interwoven with slavery, but it is practically carried out by numerous murderous principles, measures, acts, disabilities, privations, etc. There are few slave settlements in which there is not a number of instances of slaves suffering death, in such a way that, in God’s account, it will be accounted murder, caused by cruel beating, want of clothing, hunger, hard labor, inhuman usage. (4.) Indeed, slavery, in several important respects, is much more aggravated than a common act of murder. The sin of murder is not restricted to the mere act of depriving a person of life; but it is depriving the innocent persons of the enjoyments, and privileges, and advantages of life. Voluntary slaveholding is a crime, which not only deprives the slave of civil liberty, but also prevents him from answering the moral end of his existence by the acquisition of knowledge; it hinders his usefulness to society, and keeps him from attaining respectability among mankind, while he is reduced to a state of contempt and wretchedness; therefore, slaveholders who keep their fellow-creatures in the true condition of slaves, are guilty of a greater crime, 319

Page 320 view page image

TIlE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. in some respects, than if they would kill them all in infancy. A common act of murder takes away the life, but it may not affect the eternal state. But the slaveholder materially injures both soul and body, for time and eternity. They subject the slaves to a state of misery, ignorance, contempt, and wretchedness, which is worse than to kill them in infancy; and in their last will entail the same hereditary cruelty and wretchedness on the slaves and their posterity to the end of time. (5.) On the murderous character of slavery, let us hear what eye and ear witnesses have to say. The Rev. James O’Kelly, a Virginian, who wrote an “Essay on Negro Slavery,” in 1789, declares: “A slave is looked upon as the property of the master, who is his own legislator-as touching the slave-to curse, abuse, drive rigorously, sell, change, give, etc. Yea, beat without restriction, mark, brand, and castrate him; and even when life is taken away, it is but little regarded.

Perhaps there may be a small stir if one is murdered; but it is nothing but a sham inquisition! His wife and children-if slaves-are all salable property; so that the slave can not say that even his life is his own.”

(Rev. James O’Kelly, on Negro Slavery, Philadelphia, 1789.) The Rev. John Rankin, a native of Tennessee, and familiar with all the workings of slavery, in his Letters on Slavery, p. 56, says: ” In spite of all law, slaveholders have the power of life and death over their slaves. And some of them do exercise such power with perfect impunity.‘It is seldom that even so much as a prosecution is incurred by murdering them; and I do not recollect of ever hearing of a single individual being executed for taking the life of a slave. I am persuaded there is as much humane feeling in Fleming county, Kentucky, as can be found in any slaveholding section of country, of the same extent; and I think this will be readily admitted by all who are acquainted with 320

Page 321 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. the people of that county; and yet there is a certain individuail, in consequence of an unjust suspicion, [who] fell upon his poor old slave, beat him on the face, and mashed;t ill such a manner as soon terminated his life; yet by it he incurred not so much as a prosecution! I mention this case, not because it is either singular or novel, but because it happened in one of the most humane sections of one of the mildest slaveholding countries, and therefore is well calculated to show what is the real state of things, even where slavery wears the mildest aspect. It shows that the system of slavery in its best form is fraught with the most horrid murders.” (6.) The instances of atrocious murders of slaves by their masters would fill volumes. We must therefore confine ourselves to a few, which we adduce merely as specimens out of the legions which could be selected. Take the following, on the testimony of Rev. James O’Kelly: “A master who drank to excess, one morning, lately, took his man-slave, and hoisted and weighed him by a tobacco beam fixed between his legs, another standing on the beam to increase the pain; beat, cut, and lashed him till the blood poured down in streams. The slave begged for mercy, but in vain; then spoke in a soft manner to the tyrant, saying, ‘MAaster, you have killed me!’ He then lifted up his eyes to heaven, and expired. “Those murderers are still spared, and slavery tolerated, in our free United States! The land is a mere aceldama: the earth and all we possess is stained with blood. Dear Zion, too, is built up with blood. These poor outcasts of men have no kind of law to protect them from abuse of everv kind, or to allow them some small pittance for a life of hard labor. Do not call a few rags and coarse bread hire. Life itself is not protected as it ought to be. A white man’s character is regarded more than the life of a slave! This is but a very short narrative of the miserable 321

Page 322 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. consequences of slavery.” (Essay on Negro Slavery, by Rev. James O’Kelly, p. 9.) (7.) Advertisements in the public papers, calling for the murder of slaves, are of frequent occurrence in the southern papers. Such is the state of public opinion in the south that slaveholders are not ashamed to call themselves murderers, though they may substitute the terms, death, or kill, for murder. “T To hundred dollars reward.-Ran away from the subscriber, about three years ago, a negro man named Ben; also one other negro, by the name of Rigdan, who ran away about the 8th of this month. I will give the above-named reward of $100 for each of the above negroes, etc., or for the killing of them, so that I can see them. “W. D. COBB. “Nov. 12, 1836.” From the Wilmington (N. C.) Advertiser, June 1, 1838: “One hundred dollars is subscribed, and will be punctually paid by the citizens of Auslaw, to any person who may safely confine in any jail in this state, a certain negro man, named Alfred. The same reward will be paid, if satisfactory evidence is given of his having been KILLED. He has one or more SCARS, caused by his having been SHOT.

“THE CITIZENS OF AUSLAW.” In the same paper is the following advertisement, offering a reward to any one who will murder a husband for endeavoring to join his wife: “Ran away, my negro man Richard. A reward of $25 will be paid for his apprehension, DEAD OR ALIVE. Satisfactory proof will only be required of his being KILLED. He has with him, in all probability, his wife Eliza, who ran away from Colonel Thompson, now a resident of Alabama, about the time he commenced his journey to that state. “DURANT H. RHODES.” 322

Page 323 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVEiRY. From the Macon (Ga.,) Telegraph, May 28, 1838: “About the first of March last, the negro man Ransam left me, without the least provocation whatever. I will give a reward of twenty dollars for said negro, if taken DEAD OR ALIVE; and if killed in any attempt, an advance of five dollars will be paid. BRYANT JOIINsON.

“Crawford county, Ga.” From the Newbern (N. C.) Spectator, January 5, 1838: “Ran away from the subscriber, a negro man named Sampson. Fifty dollars reward will be given for the delivery of him to me, or his confinement in any jail so that I can get him; and should he resist in being taken, so that violence is necessary to arrest him, I will not hold any person liable for damages should the slave be killed. ENOCH FAY.”

“Jones county, N. C.” From the Macon (Ga.) Messenger, June 14, 1838: ” To the Owners of Runaway Negroes.-A large mulatto negro man, between thirty-five and forty years old, about six feet in hight, having a high forehead, and hair slightly gray, was KILLED, near my plantation, on the 9th instant. He would not surrender, but assaulted Mr. Barnen, who killed him in self-defense. If the owner desires further information relative to the death of his negro, he can obtain it by letter, or by calling on the subscriber, ten miles south of Perry, Houston county. EDMUND JAS.

M’GEHIEE.” (8.) The burning of negroes, in the most barbarous manner, is not very uncommon in slave states. April 28, 1836, in the city of St.

Louis, Missouri, a black man, named M’Intosh, who had stabbed an officer that had arrested him, was seized by the multitude, fastened to a tree in the midst of the city, in daylight, and in the presence of a great throng of citizens, was inhumanly burned to death. Trhe Alton (Ill.) Telegraph describes, as follows, the scene: (See American Slavery, p. 155-157. New York, 1839.) 323

Page 324 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. “All was silent while they were piling wood around their victim; when the flames seized upon him he uttered an awful howl, attempted to sing and pray, and then hung his head and suffered in silence, except in the following instance: After the flames had surrounded their prey, his eyes burnt out of his head, and his mouth seemingly parched to a cinder, some one in the crowd proposed to put an end to his misery by shooting him, when it was replied,’ that would be of no use, since hle was already out of pain.”No, no,’ said the wretch,‘I am suffering as much as ever; shoot me, shloot me.” No, no,’ said one,’ he shall not be shot. I would sooies slac’ken the fire, if that would intcr-ease his miisery;’ and the man who said this was, as we understand, an OFFICER OF JUSTICE.” The St. Louis correspondent of a New York paper adds: “The shrieks and groans of the victim were loud and piercing, and to observe one limb after another drop into the fire was awful indeed. I visited the place this morning; only a part of his head and body was left.” Hon. Luke E. Lawless, Judge of the Circuit Court of Missouri. at its session, in St. Louis, some months aftel, decided that, since the burning of M’Intosh was tile act, directly or by countenance, of a majority of citizens, it is a “case which transcends the jurisdiction of the grand jury!” The New Orleans Post, of June 7, 1836, publishes the following: “We understand that a negro man was lately condemned, by the mob, to be BURNED OV’ER A SLOW FIRE, which wIas put into execution at Grand Gulf, Mississippi, for murdering a black woman and her master.” “

T?tscoloosa, Ala., Jiune 20, 1827.-Last week a Mr. M’Neilly charged a slave with theft. M’Neilly and his brother seized him, and were about to chastise him, when the negro stabbed M’Neilly. The negro was taken before a justice, who waived his authority. A crowd collected, and 324

Page 325 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. he acted as president of the Nob, and put the vote, when it was decided he should be immediately burnt to death. He was led to the tree, a large quantity of pine knots placed around him, the fatal torch applied to the pile, and the miserable being was in a short timne burned to ashes. This is the SECOND negro who has been ThUS put to death, without judge or jury, in this county.” (African Observer, for August, 1827.) “The slave William, who murdered his master some weeks since, and several negroes, was taken by a party a few days since, from the sheriff, at Hot Spring, and burnt alive! yes, tied up to the limb of a tree, a fire built under him, and consumed in slow and lingering torture.”

(Arkansas Gazette.) (9.) But burning slowly to death, either without judge or jury, or by mob violence, is far outdone by new and additional cruelties, which declare what is the true spirit of slavery and its legitimate practices. “Aikes,, S. C., I)ec. 20, 1836. “To THE EDITORS OF

THE CONSTITUTIONALIST,-I have just returned from an inquest I held over the dead body of a negro man, a runaway, that was shot near the South Edisto, in this district, (Barnwell,) on Saturday morning last. He came to his death by his own recklessness. He refused to be taken alive, and said that other attempts to take him had been made, and he was determined that he would not be taken. When taken he was nearly naked, had a large dirk, or knife, and a heavy club. He was at first when those who were in pursuit of him found it absolutely necessaryshot at withl small shot, with the intention of merely crippling him. He was shot at several times, and at last he was so disabled as to be compelled to surrender. He kept in the run of a creek, in a very dense swamp, all the time that the neighbors were in pursuit of him. As soon as the negro was taken, the best medical aid was procured; but 28 325

Page 326 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. he died on the same evening. One of the witnesses at the inquisition stated that the negro boy said that he was friom Mississippi, and belonged to so many persons he did not know who his master was. But again he said his master’s name was Brown. He said his own name was Sam; and when asked by another witness who his master was, he muttered something like Augusta or Augustine. The boy was apparently about thirty-five or forty years of age; about six feet high; slightly yellow in the face; very long beard or whiskers; and very stout built, and a stern countenance; and appeared to have been runaway a long time. “WILLIAM H.

PRITCHARD, Coroner (ex-officio) Barnwell district, S. C. “The Mississippi and other papers will please copy the above.” (Georgia Constitutionalist.) “Execution of the negro JoseplI.-The body was taken and chained to a tree immediately on the bank of the Mississippi, on what is called Union Point.

The torches were lighted and placed in the pile. He watched, unmoved, the curling flame as it grew, till it began to entwine itself around and feed upon his body; then he sent forth cries of agony, painful to the ear, begging some one to blow his brains out, at the same time struggling with almost superhuman strength, till the staple with which the chain was fastened to the tree, not being well secured, drew out, and he leaped from the burning pile. At that moment the sharp ring of several rifles was heard, and the body of the negro fell a corpse to the ground. He was picked up by two or three, and again thrown into the fire and consumed.”

(Natchez Free Trader, June 16, 1842.) (10.) Suicidal deaths by negroes, in order to avoid the cruelties of slavery, are far from being solitary. A few out of the many instances may be given, barely to show the murderous workings of the system. “Voluntary death.-A colored man, acting as steward on .826

Page 327 view page image

TIlE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. board the Selma, was drowned at New Orleans under the following peculiar circumstances. The negro, it seems, was a runaway slave, who had, by some means, obtained a set of free papers, and, under the character of a free man, had been employed on several boats, but lastly on the Selma. The owner detected him on the boat, and seized hold of him to prevent his escape; but the negro, after a desperate struggle, succeeded in disengaging himself, and running to the wheel-house, jumped down into the water, where it is believed he voluntarily drowned himself.” Mr. Rankin, in his Letters, pp. 45-47, gives an account of six young African girls, who all hung themselves in order to get rid of the cruelties of slavery. (11.) The murderous workings of the slave system will be further manifested, in surveying that numerous class of instances in which slaves, under the views and convictions of just retaliation, have murdered their masters. Nor is it marvelous, that, both as acts of defense as well as of re venge, they would treat their masters as they themselves have been treated. In August, 1836, a negro, in Vicksburg, killed his master, because the master, who owned the negro’s wife, was in the habit of sleepingr with her. The negro said he had killed his master, and would be rewarded in heaven for doing so. The negro, without judge or jury, was inhumanly butchered. (See American Slavery, p.

157.) “Murder by a 2Vegro.-Mr. William Avery, overseer of the plantation of James M’Connel, in Marshal county, Mississippi, was murdered by a negro, on the 29th of May. Mr. A. was in the act of correcting the negro’s wife, when he was knocked down by a bludgeon and beaten to death. Mr. A.

was a humane and kind overseer, and the character of the negro without previous reproach; he is now in Raleigh jail awaiting his certain death.”

(Memphis paper.) “‘Peter was the slave of Mr. James Douglass, of Dade 327

Page 328 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. county, Missouri, who murdered three of his own children sooner than leave them in slavery; attempted suicide by cutting his own throat, attempted to murder his master, and actually murdered his mistress in the spring of 1848. Peter was a Baptist preacher of considerable talent. He was taken from Kentucky to Tennessee, and from there to Missouri, and was several times promised his liberty by his master, but the promise was never fulfilled. Peter and his wife agreed that it would be better for them and their children to be all killed than to be in slavery. At bedtime, when seated at the fire, when his wife and children were in bed, he was musing on what he should do. His wife asked him if he were asleep. He answered,‘No, I am not asleep.’ His wife said:‘Take up Mark and lay him upon the bed with Eli and John, and leave Flem with me, and put the children away Lkill them] before you go yourself.’ Peter said,‘You could not bear to see me kill the children?’

She answered,‘Yes I could; and if I make any noise or say one word, you may blow me through. They will never be any satisfaction to me any way.

You will be dead, and they will be left here to suffer for it.’ At this Peter, leaving Flem, the infant, took up Mark, a boy about three years of age, and, after kissing him, buried a razor in his neck, from the wound of which, after some struggles, he died. He then took Eli and John, the one eight and the other six years of age, both of whom pleaded for their lives. He told them that hIe himself was going to die, and asked them if they would not go with him. Eli asked,‘Is ma going too?’ His mother replied,‘Yes, ma and all are going.’ The reply of the mother reconciled the children to their fate. The mother assisted in placing the two boys side by side, and in tying a bandage around their eyes. The father leveled a loaded gun at their heads, at the fire of which they both fell; but not dying as soon as desired, he afterward cut their throats. He attempted 328

Page 329 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. then to destroy himself with a gun and razor, but failed in the attempt. He next killed his mistress and attempted to kill his master, on interfering with his attempts to kill himself and children.” (See the Funeral address of the Rev. Perry B.

Marple, delivered on the occasion of the execution of Peter, at Dade Court-House, Mo., May 26, 1848, pp. 28, octavo.) 7. Slavery is a violation of the seventh commandment, which is, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

Slavery places the slaves entirely in the power of their masters, to be sold and bought by new masters either in their own neighborhood or at a distance. And every female slave is completely in the power of her master, of his sons, his overseers, and his driver, or, in short, of any white man. The law does not allow the female slave to offer resistance to any white man, under any circumstances. Besides, female virtue on the part of the slave is treated with ridicule in a slave community. By the separation of man and wife, marriage ties are constantly sundered, and new alliances are continually formed. The persons separated contract new marriages, and so commit adultery. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, callseth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery,” Matt. v, 32. On the part of the man there is separation from the former wife, and an adulterous connection with another, thus constituting twofold adultery. It is the same with the woman. Hence, there is a fourfold adultery. This takes place on every new severance and new marriage. Some men, by frequent separations, may have several living wives, and some women may have several living husbands. And when no separations may take place, as above, the power of white persons over the slaves places every colored female slave entirely under the power of the master, 28* 329

Page 330 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. his sons, overseer, or any other white man.

Often, too, masters are fathers of the colored children of the mother and daughters, or even of their own daughters. Brothers often have forbidden connection with their own sisters; to say nothing of fathers holding and selling their own children as slaves, and brothers and sisters having brothers and sisters for slaves. The wealth of some slave states arises principally from slave-breeding. It is an object, too, to have young slaves as light-colored as possible, because mulatto slaves bring a higher price than black slaves; hlence, licentiousness in slave states becomes a profitable instead of an expensive sin, as it is under other forms of society. Read the following: “A Valucable Slave.-A veriy beautiful girl, belonging to the estate of John French, a deceased gambler at New Orleans, was sold, a few days since, for the round sum of seven thousand dollars.

An ugly-looking bachelor, named Gouch, a member of the council of one of the municipalities, was the purchaser. The Picayune says, that the girl was a brunette, remarkable for her beauty and intelligence; and that there was considerable contention who should be the purchaser. She was, however, persuaded to accept Gouch, he having made her princely promises.” (New York Evening Sun.) Case of thte Elmnondson Sisters.-These were destined for the New Orleans market, to be sold as mistresses there. Their price was two thousand, two hundred and fifty dollars, owing to their beauty and youth. After much effort, they were redeemed from a life of infamy by the benevolence of the people of New York principally. The girls were members of the MAlethlodist Episcopal Church, and were destined by their owners for prostitution. The process of amalgamation has advanced rapidly in the slave states, as white persons are frequently the fathers of the children.

After a few generations more, if this 330

Page 331 view page image

TIIE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. wicked course be pursued, the colored blood will generally disappear. The refusal of some conscientious persons to separate man and wife, and their laudable endeavors to repress the viciousness of slavery, have presented feeble, or rather powerless barriers against the general tide of corruption, so that its progress is on the advance, rather than on the decline. Besides, though such masters should be ever so tender of their slaves, during their lifetime, yet, when they die without emancipating them, they entail hereditary bondage on them and their posterity forever, with all the aggravating circumstances of adultery, which necessarily belongs to slavery. 8. Slavery is a violation of the eighth commandment, which is, “Thou shalt not steal.” According to the Larger Catechism of the Westminster divines, whose explanation of the ten commandments is, perhaps, the most complete in the world, and which is the interpretation of the decalogue held by all Presbyterian Churches, the following views are given of theft, in defining what is enjoined and what is forbidden in the eighth commandment. Among the duties required are the following: “rendering to every man according to his due,” Rom. xiii, 7; “restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right o ners thereof,”

Lev. vi, 4, 5. Among the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment are the following: “theft, robbery, manstealing, and receiving any thing that is stolen.” Bishop Hopkins, in his “Exposition of the Ten Commandments,”

which is as unrivaled, as an exposition, as the Larger Catechism is as an explanation, defines theft as follows, (p. 68:) “Theft is an unjust taking or keeping to ourselves what is lawfully another man’s. He is a thief who withholds what ought to be in his neighbor’s possession, as well as he who takes from him what hlie hath formerly possessed.” 331

Page 332 view page image

TIIE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. Slaveholders, by St. Paul, (1 Tim. i, 9, 10,) are called vean-stealers, or, in other words, the stealers, venders, or holders of men as slaves: “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and diso bedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of moth ers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” The Greek word avapaoto8c:re  -andrapodistes-is from av~pa.7obo andrapodon-a slave, and Ttxrn, to stand, meaning the person who stands over the conquered or subdued slave, to steal him, to sell him, or to hold him as a slave. Bishop Horsley maintains that the word in the text means “a person who deals in men-literally a slavetrader.” So also Dr. Bloomfield. And that manstealer, or slave-dealer, in guilt and sin, is synonymous with thief, is plain from Exodus xxi, 16, where the thief, the vender, or the holder of a stolen man is condemned as equally guilty, and to be punished with death equally with him who murders a man, or with him who strikes or curses his father or his mother. (1.) Let us analyze the crime of theft, to discover wherein its principal point of criminality consists. The chief criminality of stealing is not confined to the mere act of taking the property of another, which may be lawfully done, under peculiar circumstances. The crime of theft consists in taking that which the moral law recognizes as another’s own, without that individual having forfeited it by crime or debt. It amounts to the same, whether a person actually takes that which is another man’s right, or holds in his possession or uses what some other person has taken. The possession not only does not justify the original theft or fraud, but the principal criminality lies in the possession; 832

Page 333 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. for he who possesses the stolen property prevents the true owner from enjoying it. The moral law makes no difference between the first act of theft and the willful possession of a stolen article, whether of goods or persons. “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if hlie be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death,” Ex. xxi, 16. “Whoso is partner with a thief hliateth his own soul,” Prov. xxix, 24. “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him,” Psalm l, 18. On examining slavery, according to the principles contained in the eighth commandment, we will find, that it involves the breach of this commandment, in the most palpable and direct manner.

According to the Larger Catechism it involves “theft, robbery, manstealing, and receiving any thing that is stolen;” or, which is the same, according to Bishop Hopkins, “theft is an unjust taking or keeping to ourselves what is lawfully another man’s. He is a thief who withholds what ought to be in his neighbor’s possession.” (2.) Men are incapable of becoming the goods and chattels of another, because all men are naturally free. They are, in all circumstances, naturally, and necessarily, and rilghtfully, the owners of themselves; and therefore, no man can sell himself; nor can any man purchase a slave, except by unjust and fraudulent principles and acts. The distinguished Judge Blackstone long since proved this point, as may be seen from the following extract from his Commentaries, (1 Black. Com., 424:) “It is said, slavery may begin by one man’s selling himself to another. It is true, a man may sell himself to work for another; but he can not sell himself to be a slave, as above defined. Every sale implies an equivalent given to the seller, in lieu of what he transfers to the buyer; but what equivalent can he give for life and liberty? His property, likewise, with the very price which he seems to receive, devolves to his master, the 333

Page 334 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. moment he becomes his slave. In this case, therefore, the buyer gives nothing. Of what validity, then, can a law be, which destroys the very principle on which all sales are founded?” By the common law, if the consideration of a contract fail, the contract is void.

Now, were a man to sell himself for a slave, the consideration must fail; for the money or other consideration would, as well as the slave himself, belong to the master only; and hence, such sales would be void, by common law, (1 Black. Com., 424,) because such rights are inalienable. All involuntary sales of men are simple acts of high-handed robbery, at common law; and such are all sales of slaves in the United States. (3.) Slaveholding is robbery. It is robbery, because it is an instance of fraud and violence without the shadow of justice. It robs the slave of intellectual improvement and religious privileges, except at the discretion of his master. It robs him of his relatives and friends. It robs a man of his liberty, his wages, and the right of performing relative duties, both to God and man. Slavery is an aggravation of the sin of robbery, far beyond any other species of robbery. If it be a crime deserving corporeal punishment to steal a part of a man’s property, it must be a greater crime to steal it all, as slavery does. Other kinds of robbery commonly deprive a man only of his outward substance; but slavery robs him of his soul and body-his whole person, by converting the man into a chattel-a thing-a vendible article-putting him in the market for traffic. Common robbery is a mere transient act; but this is perpetual, or while the sufferer lives. As the slaveholder takes away the liberty of the slave and his labor without wages, he must be the worst of all robbers, as he by violence takes away soul, body, liberty, property, and all those rights of duty which the slave owes both to God and 334

Page 335 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. man. A real slavehlolder can have no more right to hon esty or good moral character than the worst swindlers, species of robbery. It is as much worse than common robbery, as all the natural rights put together arc more valuable than personal goods and chattels. Common robbery by the common law is defined, “the taking of goods and chattels from the person of another, by putting him in fear.” (4

Blackstone’s Com., 264.) Slavery is robbery of the highest kind, for it takes from its victims all their security, liberty, property, and other rights, by putting and keeping the slaves in fear. At common law, slaveholders are criminals of different kinds and in various degrees.

Thousands of them are felons deserving of capital punishment, for the crimes of rape, robbery, mayhem, and murder, committed on innocent persons, as they are accessories to these crimes. (Vid. 4 Blackstone’s Com., 195, 206, 210, etc.) (4.) Slavery is theft. There is certainly great relevancy in applying the terms thief, manstealer, or kidnapper, to the holder of men as slaves. On the coast of Africa, men are made slaves by open robbery. In America they are enslaved, or stolen away from their parents, by the arts of secrecy; though secrecy is not an essential element in the guilt of theft, it is an almost inseparable adjunct. And slaveholders attach the utmost importance to the secrecy with which they perpetrate the crime. They employ tihe most sleepless vigilance to keep the slaves iynorant of their rights, being persuaded that if the slaves were enlighltened they could not be retained in bondage. The very education of the slave consists principally in increasing his ignorance.

Hundreds of thousands of the slaves drudge on till death, unconscious of their proper manhood, thus furnishing the most complete instance of manstealing. 335

Page 336 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. Their very wills are stolen. If the slaves could all know their own rigyts and powers, they would soon be relieved from slavery. It seems hard, too, we acknowledge, to call slaveholders by the names of thieves, robbers, and manstealers, especially as many of them are enlightened and refined persons. We do not deny, indeed, that many slaveholders are enlightened, refined, or even pious persons; but if they steal men, or hold and use the stolen men or infants, and possess the good qualities attributed to them, then they are simply enlightened, refined, and pious men-stealers. A man’s good character may come in as probable evidence against a charge of crime while the fact is in doubt, but after the fact is demonstrated or confessed, the argument of good character is too late. The fact of slaveholding is here confessed, and this points out the thief or man-stcaler. And while men hold slaves as property, no other terms will as well express their real character as vian-stealer, thief, slaveholder, slave-dealer, or the like. And such are the very words which the Holy Ghost employs in both the Old and New Testaments, to designate the true character of him who makes merchandise of men, whether as the original thief, the vender, buyer, or retainer of the stolen man. He that by the act of another, whether of an individual or a legislature, becomes the legal possessor of a slave, and retains him as stolen property, with the intention now of restoring him to his liberty, and then carrying out this holy purpose, is not chargeable as a thief; any more tlian the man is who receives the stolen horse, and retains him, not as his own, but in safekeeping till hle can put the proper owner in possession of him. Can any slave conclude in his mind differently from the following, from the Life of William Brown, p. 13, uttered by himself, on commencing his narrative: “I was born in Lexington, Kentucky. The man who STOLE ME AS 336

Page 337 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. SOON AS I WAS BORN, recorded the birth of all the infants, whom he claimed to be born as his property, in a book which hlie kept for that purpose.” We know that slaveholders are very much displeased to be called by the names, by which holy Scripture designates them, such as thieves, manstealers, etc. If so, then let them take the only remedy for the disgrace, which was given by an apostle: “Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor,” etc. Let the slaveholder set the slave free, and betake himself to honest labor; and then no one will call him by these names, as they would then mean just nothing. (5.) Slaveholding, in Scripture, is expressly called theft: “.And [they] SOLD

Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver; and they brought Joseph into Egypt,” Gen. xxxvii, 28. “For indeed I was STOLEN away out of the land of the Hebrews,” Gen. xl, 15. These two passages collated show that slavery is theft, and he that sells or buys one man from a third person is a thief. Again: “If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that THIEF shall die, and thou shalt put away evil from among thee,”

Deut. xxxiv, 7. Here, he who steals, makes merchandise of, or sells a man, is expressly called a ThIEF. (6.) Holy Scripture places equally in the same general class of criminals, all who steal, sell, purchase, or hold as (I sl(t?,e, a human being “He that stealetli a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, hlie shall surely be put to death,” Ex. xxi, 16.

Here death, the highlest punishment, is awarded against the person whlo held the stolen man, as well -s ag,rainst him who orig,intlly stole him, or subsequently bought or sold him. The following, is the excellent comment of Jarchi, the 0~~~~~) 29 337

Page 338 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. distinguished Jewish commentator, on this passage: “Using a man against his will, as a servant lawfully purchased, yea, though he should use his services ever so little, only to the value of a farthing, or use but his arm to lean on to support him, if he be FORCED SO to act as a servant, the person compelling him but once to do so, shall die as a TIIIEF, whether hle has sold him or not.” The admirable note on the one hundred and forty-second question of tlhe Larger Catechism of the Presbyterian Church, was inserted by authority of the General Assem bly in 1794, by their committee, Dr. A. Green, John B. Smith, James Boyd, Wm. M. Tennant, N. Irwin, and An drew Hunter. The note is as just and philological now as it was when inserted, although the slaveholders could not endure it, and, therefore, procured its rejection: “1 Tim. i, 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime, among the Jews, exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment, (Ex. xxi, 16,) and the apostle classes them with sinners of the first rank. The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or retaininy them in it. Hominui,m fares qui servos vel liberos abducunt, retinent, vendunat, vel emnint. Stealers of men are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them. To steal a man, says Grotius, is the highest kind of theft. In other instances we only steal human property; but when we steal or )‘ctab? mien ii slavery, we seize those who, in common with ourselves, are constituted, by the original grant, lords of the earth. (Genesis i, 28. Vide Poli Synopsim in loco.”) (7.) The AiMosaic law on manstealing, (Ex. xxi, 16,) is recognized and resanctioned in the New Testament by St. Paul: “The law is not ma-le for the righteous man, but for men-stealers,” 1 Tim. i, 9, 10. There is no more innocent way of making slaves, than by stealing frece persons for this 338

Page 339 view page image

ThE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. purpose. Hence, the law against slavery forbids alike every other method of nmaking slaves of innocent persons. If men were held under the Mosaic law as property, or slaves, why was not the stealing of a slave punished by obliging the thief to restore four or more slaves? The truth is, slave-stealing was not known to the Mosaic law, because slavehlolding was by that law a capital crime. The servitude under the law was a voluntary one on the part of the servant, and a requited service on the part of the master. Those who were bought, whether Jews or heathen, were bou,lght of themselves; and what they sold was not the ownership of themselves and their posterity forever, but of their own labor, for a longer or shorter time; and the longest time the law allowed was forty-nine years. (8.) Slavery is a breach of the eilghthl commandment, ac cording to the best interpreters; and we know of none better than those whom we have already selected-Bishop Hopkins, and the WTestminster Assembly. Bishop Hopkins, in his exposition, (p. 68,)says: “Theft is an unjust taking or keeping to ourselves what is lawfully another man’s. He is a thief who withholds what ought to be in his neilghbor’s possession, as well as he who takes from him what hlie hlath formerly possessed.” Now slavery takes from a man whlat is justly his own, as his body, his labor, liberty etc. It is therefore theft; and as the slaveholder withholds what ought to be in his neighbor’s possession, lihe is therefore, in the eye of this commandment, a tlief. “Ti.e highest [kind of theft] is committed against God by sacrilege. Now sacrilege is alienating from God whatsoever he has appropriated to himself, or dedicated to his hlionor and service.” (P. 71.) Now slavery has alienated from God his sovereign control over his creature; therefore, slavery is sacrilege. “One kind of theft is OPPRESSION, and unreasonanle exaction; and this especially is the sin of superiors toward 339

Page 340 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. their inferiors, taking advantage either of their weaklness or their necessity, to impose unequal conditions upon them, and such as they can not bear without their detriment or ruin, contrary to that law which God gave his people.” (Lev. xxv, 14; Hopkins, p.‘2.) The application of the above to slavery is easy. (9.) Indeed, the great wickedness of holding property in man is so manifest, that God punished either the stealing, or trading, or holding man as property, with a rigor beyond that of any other kind of theft. Death was the punishment for stealing a man, or for dealing in the stolen property, either as a seller, a purchaser, or a holder. The simple ground, therefore, on which slavery is to be placed, is, that it is, of itself, a CRIME of the greatest enormity, besides the parent of innumerable other crimes. It is an outrage on every principle of humanity and justice, and a flagrant violation of the spirit and precepts of Christianity. Therefore, nothing remains to be done by a Christian government, but to pronounce its immediate and utter extinction, accompanying the measure with wise and just precautions. (10.) Some exav}ples, or cases, of actual theft might be given, to show how deeply slavery is involved in theft and robbery. We quote the following from the “Report on the Free People of Color of Ohio,”

as a specimen of kidnapping, very common among slaveholders. It is copied in the Antislavery Record, vol. iii, p. 76. “Mary Brown, another colored girl who was kidnapped in 1830, was the daughiter of free parents in Washington City. She lived with her parents till the death of her mother; she was then seized and sold. The following are the facts as she stated them. One day when near the Potomac bridge, Mr. Humphreys, the sheriff, overtook her, and told her that she must go wvithl him. She inquired of him, what for? He made no reply, but told her to come along. He took 340

Page 341 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. her immediately to a slave auction. Mary told Mr. Humphreys that she was free, but he contradicted her, and the sale went on. The auctioneer soon found a purchaser, and struck her off for three hundred and fifty dollars. Her master was a Mississippi trader, and she was immediately taken to the jail. After a few hours, Mary was handcuffed, chained to a man slave, and started in a drove of about forty for New Orleans. Her handcuffs made her wrists swell so that they were obliged to take them off at night, and put fetters on her ankles. In the morning her handcuffs were again put on. Thus they traveled for two weeks, wading rivers, and whipped uLp all day, and beaten at night, if they did not get their distance. Mary says that she frequently waded rivers in her chains, with water up to her waist. It was in October, and the weather cold and frosty. After traveling thus twelve or fifteen days, her arms and ankles became so swollen that she felt that she could go no farther.

Blisters would form on her feet as large as dollars, which at night she would have to open, while all day the shackles would cut into her lacerated wrists. They had no beds, and usually slept in barns, or out on the raked ground; was in such misery when she lay down that she could only lie and cry all night. Still they drove them on for another week. Her spirits became so depressed, and she grieved so much about leaving her friends, that she could not eat, and every time the trader caughlt her crying, he would beat her, accompanying it wvithl dreadful curses. The trader would whip and curse any of them whom he found praying. One evening hlie caught one of the men at prayer; he took him, lashed him down to a parcel of rails, and beat him dreadfully. He told Mary that if lie caught her praying lhe would give her hell! (Mary was a member of the Methodist Church in Washington.) There were a number of pious people in the company, and at night, when the driver found them melancholy, and disposed to pray, he would have a 29* 341

Page 342 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. fiddle brought, and make them dance in their chains. It mattered not how sad or weary they were, hie would whip them till they would do it. “MIary at length became so weak that she could travel no further. Her feeble frame was exhausted and sunk beneath her accumulated sufferings. She was seized with a burning fever, and the trader, fearing lie should lose her, carried her the remainder of the way in a wagon. “When they arrived at Natchez, they were all offered for sale, and as MIary was still sick, she begged that she might be sold to a kind master.. She would sometimes make this request in presence of purchasers, but was always insulted for it, and after they were gone the trader would punish her for such presumption. On one occasion lie tied her up by her hands, so that she could only touch the end of heri toes to the floor.

This was soon after breakfast; lie kept her thus suspended, whipping her at intervals through the day; at evening he took her down. She was so much bruised, that she could not lie down for more than a week afterward. He often beat and choked hier for another purpose, till she was obliged to yield to his desires. “She was at length sold to a wealthy man of Vicksburg, at four hundred and fifty dollars, for a house servant. T3ut he had another object in view. He compelled her to gratify his licentious passions, and had children by her. This was the occasion of so much difficulty between him and his wife, that hlie has now sent her up to Cincinnati to be free.” 9. Slaveholding is contrary to the ninth commandment, which says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neiolhbor.” This commandment requires the maintaining of truth between man and man. B3ut slavehol(ling prevents the slaves from bearing testimony before any court in their own defense, or in the cause of any other person, in clearing the innocent or condemning the guilty. 10. Slavery is contrary to the tenth commandment, which 342

Page 343 view page image

THE DECALOGUE AGAINST SLAVERY. says, “Thou shalt not covet.” By the law of God, every person, under God, is his own owner; the owner of his body, limbs, and faculties; the owner of his own time, industry, strength, and skill; the ownelr of his wife and children; the owner of his own rIights, his security, his liberty, his property, etc.; and all as the gift of God to him, and to none other. Now, slavery usurps all these first covets them, and then seizes them-and it is, therefore, a breach of the tenth commandment. 11. Slavery is against all just laws, human and divine. That it is contrary to the moral law, has been abundantly shown. The Gospel contains the grceat constitutional priinciples of right, and not mere statutory enactments. It proclaims great general rules, adapted to particular cases, public and private. The mere names of sins may not be mentioned for the names of many ire recent but then the principles, or elementary character of these sins, are very clearly pointed out. A great many vicious practices are not condemned by name in Scripture, such as counterfeiting, forgery, arson, theatres, garnbling, piracy, etc. So slavery in modern phrase may not be mentioned; yet all that was pronounced against the slavery of Joseph, tihe Hebrews in Eg,ypt, and others in the old Testament, is confirmed in the new; and principles and practices inculcated which could never originate slavery, and which, if applied, would soon destroy it in the United States where it exists, as it has done already in other states and other countries. 343

Page 344 view page image

344 CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CIIRISTIANITY. CHAPTER V. SLAVERY CONTRARY

TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. THE principles, claims, and legal practice of slavery, are antagonistic to the principles, dispositions, claims, and practices of pure Christianity. In the support of this, we furnishli the following: 1. The right, such as the master claims over the slave, is never acknowledged in the word of God. No such right is recognized by the Mosaic institutions, so that the master, without the consent of the servant, could exact services from him, prevent him from marriage, break up his family by sale, etc. In the New Testament servants are exhorted to obey their masters. (Eph. vi, 5-8; Col. iii, 22-24; 1 Tim. vi, 1; Tit. ii, 9, 10; 1 Pet. ii, 18-25.) The reasons for obedience are such as these: that servants may please God; that they may receive from him the reward of the inheritance; that the name of God and his doctrine may not be blasphemed; that they may adorn the doctrine of God, their Savior, in all things; that they may imitate the patience of Christ, etc. In no place is the master’s right of property in them adduced as a reason for the obedience of a slave. Nor is the obedience of a slave enjoined on any of those who are called servants. Where are such rights recognized as to sell a fellow-man; to buy him from another; to use or treat him as an article of merchandise; to rob him of his children, his wife, and all his goods; to prevent him from worshliping, God, improving his mind? These assumed rights of the slaveholders are sought in vain from the beginning of the Old Testament to the conclusion of the new. 2. Tile absolute powver of the master is utterly repugnant to the spirit of Christianity. That one man should be the

Page 345 view page image

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. absolute proprietor of his fellow, and the arbiter of his destinies, not only to shut him out from the enjoyment of all the blessings of Providence, but from the higher blessings of Christian light and knowledge, so as almost to destroy his moral responsibility-the attribute which distinguishes man from the brute, while it allies him to God-is repugnant to Christianity. Is it possible that a slave, under the despotic authority of his master, should be a morallyresponsible being, in the same sense in which we are responsible beings? Will any one deny that it is repugnant to Christianity, that one human being, at the will of a fellow-man, should be liable to have all the finest feelings of his heart outraged, without the probability of redress; that he should be liable to be torn and forever separated from the society of his wife and children; that he should be liable to have his body lacerated with the bloody scourge, without daring to utter the slightest murmur or complaint, on account of the barbarous infliction? It makes very little difference, in estimating the evil of slavery, that there may be many slaveholders who are mild and merciful masters, who have the interests of the slaves at heart, and are anxious to ameliorate their condition. All this can not rectify the incurable evils of the system; these are beyond the reach of individual benevolence. But, after ascribing all that can be ascribed to humane, pious, and religious individuals, it is impossible to contemplate, without indignation, a system by which the subjects of it may be remedilessly wronged in every way ill which it is possible for one man to wrong his fellow; and may be made to sustain, in addition to all the numberless vexations, and nameless aggravations whlich the details of every day may bring with it, injuries of the severest and most lasting(r kinds, without the hope or possibility of redress. 3.

Slavery and the light diffused by Christianity are directly at variance.

On this point we quote the admirable 345

Page 346 view page image

346 CONTRARY TO TIlE SPIRIT OF CIIRlSTIANITY. speech of Rev. Richard Watson, delivered April 23, 1831, in Exeter Hall, London, as follows: “It has been said that Christian instruction should be employed, in order to prepare the slaves for the enjoyment of freedom, after some very long period has elapsed. Now, ill his (Mr. Watson’s) opinion, it was imtpossible to spread Christianity through the mass of the slave population so long as it continuies in slavery. Christianity had indeed had some noble triumphs in the West Indies, but few, comparatively, among field negroes; and this was the great objection to the system. Legislators might give them Sabbaths, but they would be robbed of them practically, for there was a power in every planter greater than the power of the British government itself. Christian zeal might multiply missionaries, and yet none of these missionaries could enter an estate without leave from the owner to instruct his slaves; the consequence was that a variety of obstacles were continually thrown in the way of the diffusion of Christianity throughout the population at large. But even if it were possible to extend Christianity throughout the mass of the population, those persons who imagined that it would make the slaves quiet and content with slavery were greatly mistaken. [Hear, hear.] Christianity would make better servcants, but worse slaves. It creates honesty, industry, and conscientiousness; but it can not create them without the love of freedom.

Slavery was felt to be an evil most deeply by the man who had been brought under the influence of Christianity. [Cheers.] By religion the mind becomes enlightened, the sensibilities acute and tender, and the social relations more united and strengthened. Would a Christian father then endure it as well as a Pagan father, that his children should be separated from him; that his daulghters, whom he had educated in virtue, should be subdued for pollution by the influence of the whip, a thing most general throughout the slave colonies; and if the whip

Page 347 view page image

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. 347 be employed. not merely to cut the fes. but o t deeper-to separate the marriage ties? Was it possible that Christianity should teach a man to tolerate such things as these?

There was no libel. so gross, as that Christianity could be made the instrument of defending such an outrage. Our religion was not a religion to teach slaves to kiss their chains, but a religion to teach freemen how to use their freedom.” (See London Antislavery Reporter, vol. iv, p. 227.) 4. Nothing can be more directly contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity than the inhuman and horrible system of slavery. If one act of injustice, willfully committed, is inconsistent with the character of a Christian, what must be ten thousand such acts? If one injured and oppressed fellow-creature cries against us for redress to the Father of mercies, and cries not in vain, what will not the cries of thousands effect? If an occasional deed of cruelty, prompted by passion, is a provocation, in the eyes of God, not to be overlooked, what must a cool, deliberate system of cruelty be, in the estimation of God? If crimes, affecting the health or property of another, be a breach of the Divine commandments, what must be the injuries affecting the liberty, the whole future well-being, the family, the children of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children consigned to hopeless slavery? 5. The dispositions and feelings enjoined on Christians, and exercised by them, are at variance with slavery. Christians were commanded thus: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him,” 1 John ii, 15; ” ce adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God,” James iv, 4. Hence, those who had possessions sold them, and divided their proceeds, “as every man had

Page 348 view page image

348 CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF’ CHRISTIANITY. need,” Acts ii, 44, 45. Those who had practiced unlawful acts forsook them, at a great pecuniary sacrifice. (Acts xix, 18-20.) Hence, this benevolence utterly forbids oppression, in every form, and of course the oppressions of slavery.

Besides, there always was, and still is, the leveling sp)irit in Christianity. Christians were baptized into one, homogeneous body. (1 Cor.

xii, 12, 13.) Invidious distinctions were abolished by the Gospel. As many as were baptized into Christ became the 6ovxot-servants-not slaves of God.

There was neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free among them. These and other distinctions of the same kind were merged into the comprehensive relations of Christians. (Gal. iii, 26-28.) Hence, it is beautifully said by the apostle, “Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted, but the rich in that he is made low,” James i, 9, 10. 6. Indeed, the very principles of Christ’s kingdom are opposed to slavery. (Matt. xx, 25-28.) The principle of the kingdomr is benevolence. The subjects are required to serve each other according to their respective abilities and necessities.

All despotic domination is forbidden in Christianity. And all relations not consistent with this Christian rule are forbidden: “It shall not be so among you.” It were easy to show that the leading principles inculcated in the above passage, and others like it, are in direct opposition to slavery. 7. Hence, the brotherhtood of Christianity is at variance with slavery. All Christians were to be regarded as brethi9’ciz. ” One is your master, [xazoynn leader,] and all yec are brethren,” Matt. xxiii, 8. This is the uniform ling’lage of the New Testament. There is nothing to hinder its proper use when the rich address the poor, or princes their subjects, or preachers their people; but there is much to prevent its use when applied by masters to their slaves, or of slaves to their masters. To apply the terms brethren and sisters to those who are slaves is a departure from all just language.

Page 349 view page image

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CIIRISTIANITY. The case of Demarara will exemplify this. It was found in that island, that the progress of Christianity was likely to become dangerous to the slave system, and therefore, it became a serious object, not to extinguish slavery, but to expel Christianity. In 1808 the Royal Demarara Gazette promulgated this doctrine: “He that chooses to make slaves Christians, let him give them their liberty. Wh,t, will be the consequence, when to that class of men is given the title of beloved brethren, which actually is done! Assembling negroes in places of public worship gives a momentary feeling of independence, both of thinking and acting; and by frequent meetings of this kind a spirit of remark is generated; neither of which are sensations at all proper to be excited in the minds of slaves.” Again, in 1823, the same paper says, “To address a promiscuous audience of black or colonial people, bond and free, by the endearing appellation of’my brethren and sisters,’ is what can no where be heard but in Providence Chapel.” “Can you make your negroes Christians, and use the words’ dear brother’

or’sister’ to those you hold in bondage? They would conceive themselves, by possibility, put on a level with yourselves, and the chains of slavery would be broken.” It is not to be inferred, however, that Demarara formally abandoned Christianity; for they only rejected that kind of Christianity which came in opposition to slavery. In 1696 Jamaica passed an act in which it was declared that every slave should be educated and instructed in the Christian religion. In 1831 they renewed that act. Yet they confessed that, for over a hundred years together, nothing efficient was done to promote Christianity; for they found that the true brotherhood of Christianity would, in the end, ruin their slavery. 8. Slavery will not admit of prayer for its support; therefore, it must be sinful. Prayer is offering up our desires to God, for things agree 309 30 349

Page 350 view page image

350 CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. able to his will, in the name of Christ, with thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. The things asked in prayer should, in their nature, be lawful. But there is no precept in the moral law that will make it lawful to steal the property of another, or rob him of his possessions. But the liberty, the labor, the wife, the children, are his property. It would be blasphemy to suppose there could be a promise in God’s word that would secure his blessing to acts of theft and robbery. There is, therefore, not a promise in the Bible for a slaveholder to plead upon for strength and grace to assist him in the practices of slaveholding, such as stealing men, women, and children-purchasing stock negroes-selling off surplus ones to the drivers-distributing families by will among heirs-whipping the disobedient-transporting by private sales the refractory-separating the married, etc. It would be difficult, indeed, to find many examples of persons deliberately praying to God, for Christ’s sake, to assist them in forcibly restraining their neighbors from enjoying freedom, and to enable them to exact their labor without wages. Still, many cases might be given in which religious devotions might be connected with the cruelest treatment toward slaves. But, if slaveholding be right, and therefore a duty, the master is bound to pray to God for grace and wisdom to enable him to fulfill his duty, according to the true nature and tendency of the practice. We have, in our reading, selected several prayers, devoutly offered up to God in behalf of the slave, some of which we will transcribe, for the benefit of those who may be disposed to pray for the liberation of those in bondage. The following is the devout prayer of the Rev. John Wesley, found in the conclusion of his “Thoughts on Slavery,”

which were published in 1774: “0, thou God of love! thou who art loving to every

Page 351 view page image

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. man, and whose mercies are over all thy works! thou who art the Father of the spirits of all flesh, and who art rich in mercy to all! thou who hast made of one blood all the nations upon earth! have compassion upon these outcasts of men, who are trodden down as dung upon the earth! Arise, and help those that have no helper! whose blood is spilt upon the ground like water! Are these, also, not the works of thine own hands? the purchase of thy Son’s blood? Stir them up to cry to thee, in the land of their captivity; and let their complaint come up before thee! Let it enter into thy ears! Make even those that lead them away captive to pity them, and turn their captivity as the rivers in the south! 0, burst thou all their chains in sunder, more especially the chains of their sins! Savior of all, make them free, that they may be free indeed! The servile progeny of Ham Seize, as the purchase of thy blood! Let all the heathens know thy name, From idols to the living God! The dark Americans convert, And shine in every Pagan’s heart!”

(Wesley’s Works, vol. vi, p. 293.) The Rev. James O’Kelley, in his “Essay on Negro Sla very,” published in Philadelphia, 1789, devoutly concludes his Essay as follows: “0, dear Jesus! let beams dart from thy benevolent eyes into the hearts of our countrymen, and soften their spirits!

Disperse, dispel the thick, gloomy cloud of errors, lest all innocent blood of those people fall from first to last upon this generation! We are pained at small matters. We strain at gnats, while camels choke us not.”

The Rev. Daniel Wilson, vicar of Islington, in a sermon preached October 31, 1830, on slavery, concludes with the following prayer: “And do thou be pleased, 0, God of mercy! to look upon us as a nation! Do thou move the hearts of the people 351

Page 352 view page image

352 CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. as the heart of one man! Do thou touch us with compunction! Do thou permit us to repair this mighty injustice, before thou smitest us for our refusal to do so! Do thou permit and enable us to break the chains of our bondage, ere thou burst them in thine indignation! Do thou assist us to rise above all difficulties, and to resist all temptations to delay, and to set a pattern of justice, at length, to that world which we have been injuring by our example of selfishness and cruelty! Do thou enable us to make what compensation we can to the oppressed negro race, for the long wrongs we have done them!

“Suffer us not to go on in our provocations of thy Divine majesty! Give us not over, as thou justly mightest, to hardness of heart! Let us not refuse, like Pharaoh of old, to let the people go, till thy vengeance is uplifted against us-till thou sendest confusion into our councils, a blight upon all our prosperity, war in our borders, ruin in our national concerns, despair and death in our land! “Let us yet-O, let us, by thy mercy, be still the people of thy pasture! Let truth and righteousness abound among us! Let us set the captives free, and nobly trust to thee, in following the path of duty. Let thy Gospel yet flourish among us! Let our Church enjoy thy benediction! Let our nation be still the glory of the reformed countries-the herald of liberty, and peace, and social order, and religion to the neighboring states-the messenger of grace to the Jew and Gentile-the dispenser of happiness and salvation to mankind! And then to thy name, thy mercy, thy long-suffering, thy power, thy grace,.shall be the praise forever and ever, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” The Rev.

Joseph Ivimey, in a lecture on slavery delivered April 17, 1832, concludes with the following prayer: “Merciful Father of the human race! thou sittest upon thy throne, judging right! thy way is in the sea, and thy

Page 353 view page image

CONTRARY TO TIlE SPIRIT OF CIIRISTIANITY. footsteps are not known; clouds and darkness are round about thee; judgment and justice are the habitation of thy throne. Thou makest the wrath of man to praise thee, and the remainder thereof thou wilt restrain. We would adore the sovereignty of thy inscrutable conduct in regard to the misery which thou hast righteously permitted to exist, not doubting but that the Judge of the whole earth will do right; and firmly believing that thou wilt make the most afflictive events subserve the accomplishments of thy merciful purposes, in the universal spread of thy Gospel, and the ultimate salvation of the whole body of thine elect people. Why withdrawest thou thy hand? pluck it out Qf thy bosom. Remember the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty. 0, let not the oppressed return ashamed! Let the poor and needy praise thy name. Arise, O

Lord, plead thine own cause. Remember how the foolish man reproveth thee daily. O that the Father of the universe may, in compassion, arise and set the enslaved negro free!” We sometimes sing a hymn, in which there is this expressive verse: “Let the Indian-let the niegro Let the rude barbarian see That divine and glorious conquest, Once obtained on Calvary; And redemption, Freely purchased, win the day.” As an example of the opposition between slavery and prayer, we may quote the case of the Rev.

Mr. Brisbane, who was banished South Carolina for praying for liberty and emancipating his slaves. The Charleston Mercury thus records the proceedings of a meeting held at Lawtonville, Feb. 8, 1848, respecting Mr.

Brisbane: “About four years since he visited this section of country, and, after his return north, gave a garbled and false statement of his sojourn here, endeavoring to make capital 30* 353

Page 354 view page image

354 CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. for himself by recounting the great personal risks he encountered in appearing among us; when, unfortunately for ourselves, he was permitted to remain and depart unmolested, after having settled his personal and private business, having made no public demonstration of himself or his abolition principles. But during his present sojourn he has had the audacity to show himself in one of our pulpits, alluding to his estrangement from his native place not being the result of choice but of necessity-a necessity brought about by the force of conscience-there insulting us with the prayer that universal liberty might soon prevail. “In consideration of these facts, and regarding him as we do to be an enemny to his country, a traitor to the south, and particularly dangerous to this section, where he has the sympathy of the slaves, having liberated apart of his own here, we think he should not be permitted to rest among us. Therefore, be it “Resoleved, That a committee of three wait on Rev. Wm. H. Brisbane, M. D., instanter, and warn him to leave the state in forty-eight hours, or abide the consequences from a hitherto patient but now indignant community.

“Resolve(l, That, if the committee find Mr. Brisbane unwilling to depart, they wait upon the chairman and secretary, who are charged with disseminating the information so as to call the people together at an early day.” 9. The penaltyV by which slavery is punished, declares it to be a crime of the first magnitude, equal to m?irder, striki’jy or revili2?

a parent, and the like. “He that cursetli his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death. He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. He that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death,” Ex. xxi, 15-17. The same penalty is pronounced in Deut. xxiv, 7: “If a man be found stealing any of his brethren

Page 355 view page image

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that thief shall die.” The crime here is, stealing a man, selling him, making merchandise of him, or holding him, which is neither more nor less than holding human beings in slavery. This crime is equal in atrocity to murder, striking or reviling a parent, or the like. Therefore, slavery is a sin of the first magnitude, by this decision of God. 10. In short, slavery is a barrier to the progress of civilization, education, and Christianity. On this head we present the following, from a paper read by Rev. William Bevan before the Antislavery Convention held in London in June, 1840: “A system so founded in injustice, so reared in irreligion, so consummated in enormity, opposes a fearful barrier to the progress of civilization, education, and Christianity. In every operation on the character of the enslaver and the enslaved, it accelerates the downward movement of depravity and misery.

The Christian Church is brought to the conviction, that only in the diffusion of the blessings of education and religion, will civilization advance, and these are withheld. To retain the slave as a chattel, a mere animated machine, the intelligent principle within him must be crippled and fettered. It can never be destroyed. Hence the restrictions on means of instruction, and the penal sanctions by which they are enforced. Above all, the spirit of Christianity is restrained. “Slavery decrees that the word of the Lord shall not have free course. The two can not walk through the land together, for they are not agreed. If the Gospel be triumphant, slavery must fall. That slavery may continue in despotic might, the truth of God must be bound. They are diametrically and unalterably opposed.

Slavery consorts with the demon of pollution; the Gospel breathes the 355

Page 356 view page image

356 CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. spirit of purity. Slavery seeks an asylum in the thick darkness; the Gospel is the emanation of pure and heavenly light. Slavery denies to manl the prerogatives of reason and conscience; the Gospel illuminates his mind, purifies the conscience and sets it free. Slavery debases and curses his being; the Gospel ennobles and blesses him with a renewed and celestial nature. Slavery plunges him into unmitigated distress and despair; the Gospel elevates him to joy and hope. Slavery draws a vail over the relation of life and immortality; the Gospel confers the free and glorious title to the life everlasting. The outbreakings of the evil genius of the system have ever been characterized by unrelenting animosity to the religion of Jesus. It has razed the Christian sanctuary-it has committed to the flames the oracles of God-it has satiated its thirst with the blood of the saints. To gather the broken in heart to the ministry of consolation, is rebellion against its majesty; to announce the opening of the prison to them that are bound, is to move the wretched captives to sedition; to read the messages of sovereign grace, is to utter treason against its state. “The question which the Church of Christ has to determine, is, whether the Gospel shall be hidden, or whether this monster tyrant shall be overthrown. To its determination she must proceed. Considerations of policy and expediency must be banished from her councils, when high and sacred duty summons her to action. The testimonies of. her solemn assemblies must go forth, the remonstrance of her consecrated ministers must be heard abroad. Her silence must be broken. The trumpet of battle must be sounded against the abomination, which retains the uncivilized in their degradation in the midst of the enlightened and the free; which endangers the peace, the stability, the prosperity, the happiness of mighty nations; which resists

Page 357 view page image

CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY. the progress of the heralds of salvation; which is twice accursed; which curseth, in time and in eternity, both him that enslaves and him that is enslaved.” (Proceedings of the London Antislavery Convention for 1841, pp. 95-97.) END OF VOLUME

I. 357

Page 358 view page image

Powered by DLXS

To comment or inquire about content, contact moa-feedback@umich.edu To report errors, contact umdl-help@umich.edu Reprint Information for this collection