An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans Part 3

While the slave-trade was allowed, the South could use it to advance their views in various ways. In their representation to Congress, five slaves counted the same as three freemen; of course, every fresh cargo was not only an increase of property, but an increase of _political power_. Ample time was allowed to lay in a stock of slaves to supply the new slave states and territories that might grow up; and when this was effected, the prohibition of foreign commerce in human flesh, operated as a complete _tariff_, to protect the domestic supply.

Every man who buys a slave promotes this traffic, by raising the value of the article; every man who owns a slave, indirectly countenances it; every man who allows that slavery is a lamentable _necessity_, contributes his share to support it; and he who votes for admitting a slave-holding State into the Union, fearfully augments the amount of this crime.

CHAPTER II.

COMPARATIVE VIEW OF SLAVERY, IN DIFFERENT AGES AND NATIONS.

"E'en from my tongue some heartfelt truths may fall; And outraged Nature claims the care of all.

These wrongs in _any_ place would force a tear; But call for stronger, deeper feeling _here_."

"Oh, sons of freedom! equalize your laws-- Be all consistent--plead the negro's cause-- Then all the nations in your code may see, That, black or white, Americans are free."

Between ancient and modern slavery there is this remarkable distinction--the former originated in motives of humanity; the latter is dictated solely by avarice. The ancients made slaves of captives taken in war, as an amelioration of the original custom of indiscriminate slaughter; the moderns attack defenceless people, without any provocation, and steal them, for the express purpose of making them slaves.

Modern slavery, indeed, in all its particulars, is more odious than the ancient; and it is worthy of remark that the condition of slaves has always been worse just in proportion to the freedom enjoyed by their masters. In Greece, none were so proud of liberty as the Spartans; and they were a proverb among the neighboring States for their severity to slaves. The slave code of the Roman republic was rigid and tyrannical in the extreme; and cruelties became so common and excessive, that the emperors, in the latter days of Roman power, were obliged to enact laws to restrain them. In the modern world, England and America are the most conspicuous for enlightened views of freedom, and bold vindication of the equal rights of man; yet in these two countries slave laws have been framed as bad as they were in Pagan, iron-hearted Rome; and the customs are in some respects more oppressive;--_modern_ slavery unquestionably wears its very worst aspect in the Colonies of England and the United States of North America. I hardly know how to decide their respective claims. My countrymen are fond of pre-eminence, and I am afraid they deserve it here--especially if we throw into the scale their loud boasts of superiority over all the rest of the world in civil and religious freedom. The slave codes of the United States and of the British West Indies were originally almost precisely the same; but _their_ laws have been growing milder and milder, while _ours_ have increased in severity.

The British have the advantage of us in this respect--they long ago dared to describe the monster as it is; and they are now grappling with it, with the overwhelming strength of a great nation's concentrated energies.--The Dutch, those st.u.r.dy old friends of liberty, and the French, who have been stark mad for freedom, rank next for the severity of their slave laws and customs. The Spanish and Portuguese are milder than either.

I will give a brief view of some of our own laws on this subject; for the correctness of which, I refer the reader to Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws of the United States of America. In the first place, we will inquire upon what ground the negro slaves in this country are claimed as property. Most of them are the descendants of persons kidnapped on the coast of Africa, and brought here while we were British Colonies; and as the slave-trade was openly sanctioned more than twenty years after our acknowledged independence, in 1783, and as the traffic is still carried on by smugglers, there are, no doubt, thousands of slaves, now living in the United States, who are actually stolen from Africa.[J]

[Footnote J: In the new slave States, there are a great many negroes, who can speak no other language than some of the numerous African dialects.]

A provincial law of Maryland enacted that any white woman who married a negro slave should serve his master during her husband's lifetime, and that all their children should be slaves. This law was not repealed until the end of eighteen years, and it then continued in full force with regard to those who had contracted such marriages in the intermediate time; therefore the descendants of white women so situated may be slaves unto the present day. The doctrine of the common law is that the offspring shall follow the condition of the _father_; but slave law (with the above temporary exception) reverses the common law, and provides that children shall follow the condition of the _mother_.

Hence mulattoes and their descendants are held in perpetual bondage, though the _father_ is a free white man. "Any person whose _maternal_ ancestor, even in the _remotest_ degree of distance, can be shown to have been a negro, Indian, mulatto, or a mestizo, _not_ free at the time this law was introduced, although the _paternal_ ancestor at each successive generation may have been a _white free_ man, is declared to be the subject of perpetual slavery." Even the code of Jamaica, is on this head, more liberal than ours; by an express law, slavery ceases at the _fourth_ degree of distance from a negro ancestor: and in the other British West Indies, the established custom is such, that quadroons or mestizoes (as they call the second and third degrees) are rarely seen in a state of slavery. Here, neither law nor public opinion favors the mulatto descendants of free white men. This furnishes a convenient game to the slaveholder--it enables him to fill his purse by means of his own vices;--the right to sell one half of his children provides a fortune for the remainder.--Had the maxim of the common law been allowed,--i. e.

that the offspring follows the condition of the _father_,--the mulattoes, almost without exception, would have been free, and thus the prodigious and alarming increase of our slave population might have been prevented. The great augmentation of the servile cla.s.s in the Southern States, compared with the West India colonies, has been thought to indicate a much milder form of slavery; but there are other causes, which tend to produce the result. There are much fewer white men in the British West Indies than in our slave States; hence the increase of the _mulatto_ population is less rapid. Here the descendants of a colored mother _never_ become free; in the West Indies, they cease to be slaves in the _fourth generation_, at farthest; and their posterity increase the _free_ colored cla.s.s, instead of adding countless links to the chain of bondage.

The manufacture of sugar is extremely toilsome, and when driven hard, occasions a great waste of negro life; this circ.u.mstance, together with the tropical climate of the West Indies, furnish additional reasons for the disproportionate increase of slaves between those islands and our own country, where a comparatively small quant.i.ty of sugar is cultivated.

It may excite surprise, that _Indians_ and their offspring are comprised in the doom of perpetual slavery; yet not only is _incidental_ mention of them as slaves to be met with in the laws of most of the States of our confederacy, but in one, at least, _direct legislation_ may be cited to sanction their enslavement. In Virginia, an act was pa.s.sed, in 1679, declaring that "for _the better encouragement of soldiers_, whatever Indian prisoners were taken in a war, in which the colony was then engaged, should be _free purchase_ to the soldiers taking them;" and in 1682, it was decreed that "all servants brought into Virginia, by sea or land, not being _Christians_, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes, or Indians, (except Turks and Moors in amity with Great Britain) and all Indians, which should thereafter be _sold by neighboring Indians_, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, _should be slaves to all intents and purposes_." These laws ceased in 1691; but the descendants of all Indians sold in the intermediate time are now among slaves.

In order to show the true aspect of slavery among us, I will state distinct propositions, each supported by the evidence of actually existing laws.

1. _Slavery is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants, to the latest posterity._

2. _The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, and the time allowed for rest, are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and provender, both as to quant.i.ty and quality, depend entirely on the master's discretion._

3. _The slave being considered a personal chattel, may be sold, or pledged, or leased, at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts, or taxes, either of a living, or a deceased master. Sold at auction, "either individually, or in lots to suit the purchaser," he may remain with his family, or be separated from them for ever._

4. _Slaves can make no contracts, and have no legal right to any property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings, and the legacies of friends belong, in point of law, to their masters._

5. _Neither a slave, nor free colored person, can be a witness against any white or free man, in a court of justice, however atrocious may have been the crimes they have seen him commit: but they may give testimony against a fellow-slave, or free colored man, even in cases affecting life._

6. _The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without trial--without any means of legal redress,--whether his offence be real, or imaginary: and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any person, or persons, he may choose to appoint._

7. _The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under any circ.u.mstances: his only safety consists in the fact that his owner may bring suit, and recover, the price of his body, in case his life is taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor._

8. _Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for their personal safety._

9. _The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations._

10. _The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the master is willing to enfranchise them._

11. _The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious instruction and consolation._

12. _The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of the lowest ignorance._

13. _There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.

What is a trifling fault in the white man, is considered highly criminal in the slave; the same offences which cost a white man a few dollars only, are punished in the negro with death._

14. _The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color._

PROPOSITION 1.--_Slavery hereditary and perpetual._

In Maryland the following act was pa.s.sed in 1715, and is still in force: "All negroes and other slaves, already imported, or hereafter to be imported into this province, and all children now born, or hereafter to be born, of such negroes and slaves, shall be slaves during their natural lives." The law of South Carolina is, "All negroes, _Indians_, (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, and mestizoes, who are _now_ free, excepted,) mulattoes or mestizoes, who now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue born, or to be born, shall be and remain for ever hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of _the mother_." Laws similar exist in Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In consequence of these laws, people so nearly white as not to be distinguished from Europeans, may be, and have been, legally claimed as slaves.

PROP. 2.--_Labor compulsory and uncompensated, &c._

In most of the slave States the law is silent on this subject; but that it is the established custom is proved by laws restraining the excessive abuse of this power, in some of the States. Thus in one State there is a fine of ten s.h.i.+llings, in another of two dollars, for making slaves labor on Sunday, unless it be in works of absolute necessity, or the necessary occasions of the family. There is likewise a law which provides that "any master, who withholds proper sustenance, or clothing, from his slaves, or overworks them, so as to injure their health, shall upon _sufficient information_ [here lies the rub] being laid before the grand jury, be by said jury presented; whereupon it shall be the duty of the attorney, or solicitor-general, to prosecute said owners, who, on conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine, or be imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court."

The negro act of South Carolina contains the following language: "Whereas many owners of slaves, and _others_, who have the care, management, and overseeing of slaves, _do confine them so closely to hard labor, that they have not sufficient time for natural rest_; be it therefore enacted, that if any owner of slaves, or others having the care, &c., shall put such slaves to labor more than _fifteen_ hours in twenty-four, from the twenty-fifth of March to the twenty-fifth of September; or more than _fourteen_ hours in twenty-four hours, from the twenty-fifth of September to the twenty-fifth of March, any such person shall forfeit a sum of money not exceeding twenty pounds, nor under five pounds, current money, for every time he, she, or they, shall offend therein, at the discretion of the justice before whom complaint shall be made."

In Louisiana it is enacted, that "the slaves shall be allowed half an hour for breakfast, during the whole year; from the first of May to the first of November, they shall be allowed two hours for dinner; and from the first of November to the first of May, one hour and a half for dinner: provided, however, that the owners, who will themselves take the trouble of having the meals of their slaves prepared, be, and they are hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour a day, the time fixed for their rest."

All these laws, _apparently_ for the protection of the slave, are rendered perfectly null and void, by the fact, that the testimony of a negro or mulatto is _never_ taken against a white man. If a slave be found toiling in the field on the Sabbath, who can _prove_ that his master commanded him to do it?

The law of Louisiana stipulates that a slave shall have _one_ linen s.h.i.+rt,[K] and a pair of pantaloons for the summer, and _one_ linen s.h.i.+rt and a woollen great-coat and pantaloons for the winter; and for food, one pint of salt, and a barrel of Indian corn, rice, or beans, every month. In North Carolina, the law decides that a quart of corn per day is sufficient. But, if the slave does not receive this poor allowance, who can _prove_ the fact. The withholding of proper sustenance is absolutely incapable of proof, unless the evidence of the sufferer himself be allowed; and the law, as if determined to obstruct the administration of justice, permits the master to exculpate himself by an oath that the charges against him are false. Clothing may, indeed, be ascertained by _inspection_; but who is likely to involve himself in quarrels with a white master because a poor negro receives a few rags less than the law provides? I apprehend that a person notorious for such gratuitous acts of kindness, would have little peace or safety, in any slaveholding country.

[Footnote K: This s.h.i.+rt is usually made of a coa.r.s.e kind of bagging.]

If a negro be compelled to toil night and day, (as it is said they sometimes are,[L] at the season of sugar-making) who is to _prove_ that he works more than his fourteen or fifteen hours? No slave can be a witness for himself, or for his fellow-slaves; and should a white man happen to know the fact, there are ninety-nine chances out of a hundred, that he will deem it prudent to be silent. And here I would remark that even in the island of Jamaica, where the laws have given a most shocking license to cruelty,--even in Jamaica, the slave is compelled to work but _ten_ hours a day, beside having many holidays allowed him. In Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey, the _convicts_ condemned to hard labor in the penitentiaries, are required by law to toil only from _eight_ to _ten_ hours a day, according to the season of the year; yet the law providing that the innocent slave should labor but _fourteen_ or _fifteen_ hours a day, professes to have been made as a merciful amelioration of his lot!--In Rome, the slaves had a yearly festival called the Saturnalia, during which they were released from toil, changed places with their masters, and indulged in unbounded merriment; at first it lasted but one day; but its duration afterwards extended to two, three, four, and five days in succession. We have no Saturnalia here--unless we choose thus to designate a coffle of slaves, on the fourth of July, rattling their chains to the sound of a violin, and carrying the banner of freedom in hands loaded with irons.

[Footnote L: See Western Review, No. 2, on the Agriculture of Louisiana.]

In Georgia, "The inferior courts of the several counties on _receiving information on oath_ of any _infirm_ slave or slaves, being in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners, can make _particular inquiries_ into the situation of such slaves, and render such relief as they think proper. And the said courts may sue for and recover from the owner of such slaves the amount appropriated for their relief." The information must, in the first place, be given by a _white man_ upon oath; and of whom must the "particular inquiries" be made?

Not of the slave, nor of his companions,--for their evidence goes for nothing; and would a master, capable of starving an aged slave, be likely to confess the whole truth about it? The judges of the inferior courts, if from defect of evidence, or any other cause, they are unable to _prove_ that relief was absolutely needed, must pay all the expenses from their own private purses. Are there many, think you, so desperately enamored of justice, as to take all this trouble, and incur all this risk, for a starving slave?

PROP. 3.--_Slaves considered personal chattels, liable to be sold, pledged, &c._

The advertis.e.m.e.nts in the Southern papers furnish a continued proof of this; it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of evidence.[M] The power to separate mothers and children, husbands and wives, is exercised only in the British West Indies, and the _republic_ of the United States!

[Footnote M: A white man engaged in a disturbance was accompanied by three or four slaves; his counsel contended that there were not _persons_ enough in the affair to const.i.tute a riot, because the slaves were mere _chattels_ in the eye of the law. It was, however, decided that when liable to the _punishment_ of the law, they were persons.]

In Louisiana there is indeed a humane provision in this respect: "If at a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled through old age or otherwise, and who have children, such slaves shall not be sold but with such of his or of her children, whom he or she may think proper to go with." But though parents cannot be sold apart from their children, without their consent, yet the master may keep the parents and sell the _children_, if he chooses; in which case the separation is of course equally painful.--"By the _Code Noir_, of Louis the Fourteenth, husbands and wives, parents and children, are not allowed to be sold separately. If sales contrary to this regulation are made by process of law, under _seizure for debts_, such sales are declared void; but if such sales are made _voluntarily_ on the part of the owner, a wiser remedy is given--the wife, or husband, children, or parent retained by the seller, may be claimed by the purchaser, without any additional price; and thus the separated family may be re-united again. The most solemn agreement between the parties contrary to this rule has been adjudged void." In the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies, plantation slaves are considered _real estate_, attached to the soil they cultivate, and of course not liable to be torn from their homes whenever the master chooses to sell them; neither can they be seized or sold by their master's creditors.