Slavery and the Constitution Part 6

How true and yet how faint a picture of the vast influence for good of the inst.i.tution of marriage! But if marriage thus unites all which it enn.o.bles and beautifies life; if, as a means of education, its influence is uncalculated and incalculable, what must be the moral degradation of that people to whom marriage is denied? Must not the degradation also be uncalculated and incalculable? And yet such is the condition of the slaves! Not content with depriving them of all the higher and holier enjoyments of marriage, by degrading and darkening their souls, the slaveholders deny to their slaves even that slight alleviation to their misery which would result from their marriage-relations being protected.

It is obviously true, that (Jones's "Catechism," p. 112) "all the comfort and happiness of the marriage-state, and all the good flowing from it, to families and the world at large, depend upon its sacredness and purity." Without these there can be no marriage. No less true is it, that the inst.i.tution ("Rel. Inst." p. 132) "depends, for its perpetuity, sacredness, and value, _largely_ upon the protection given to it by the law of the land." _But the law gives no protection whatever to the marriage of slaves!_

"Slaves cannot marry," says the Civil Code of Louisiana (Art. 182), "without the consent of their masters; and their marriages do not produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract."

"With the consent of their masters, slaves may marry, and their moral power to agree to such a contract or connection as that of marriage cannot be doubted; but, whilst in a state of slavery, it cannot produce any civil effect, because slaves are deprived of all civil rights" (6 Martin's Rep. 550.)

"As the State," says a writer in the "Carolina Baptist,"

"const.i.tutionally and legally is ignorant of the marriage of slaves, it is equally ignorant of its dissolution. _It leaves this whole matter where it ought to be, that is, untouched, and with the owners themselves._ If there be an abuse of this power, the remedy is not with the State, but social, religious, and ecclesiastical" ("The Church as it is," p. 77).

"_Negro marriages_," says Mr. Jones ("Rel. Inst." pp. 132, 133), "_are neither recognized nor protected by law._ The negroes receive no instruction on the nature, sacredness, and perpetuity of the inst.i.tution: at any rate, they are far from being duly impressed with these things. They are not required to be married in any particular form, nor by any particular persons. Their ceremonies are performed by their own watchmen or teachers, by some white minister, or, as it frequently happens, not at all.... There is no special disgrace nor punishment visited upon those who criminally violate their marriage vows,[M] except what may be inflicted by owners, or, if the parties be members, by the church in the way of suspension and excommunication."--Page 119: "_The relation is liable to disruption in a variety of forms, for some of which there is no remedy._"--Page 133: "Families are, and may be, divided for improper conduct on the part of either husband or wife, _or by necessity, as in cases of the death of owners, division of estates, debt, sale, or removals; for they are subject to all the changes and vicissitudes of property_. Such divisions are, however, carefully guarded against and prevented, _as far as possible_, by owners, on the score of interest, as well as of religion and humanity. Hence, as may well be imagined, the marriage-relation loses much of the sacredness and perpetuity of its character. It is a contract of convenience, profit, or pleasure, that may be entered into and dissolved at the will of the parties, and that without heinous sin."

What a pitiful and wicked mockery it is thus to expound to slaves the seventh commandment! (Jones's "Catechism," pp. 110, 111):

"Q. Should persons be married in a public or in a private way?--A.

In a public way.

Q. And by whom should the ceremony be performed?--A. By a minister or some other lawful person.

Q. Is G.o.d really present to witness the marriage?--A. Yes.

Q. How near of kin may a man marry?--A. His first cousin.

Q. After marriage, can husband and wife separate whenever they please?--A. No.

Q. Has any person whatever power to separate them if he pleases?--A.

No.

Q. What saith our Saviour, 'What, therefore, G.o.d hath joined'? A.

'What, therefore, G.o.d hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'

Q. Can husband and wife ever separate?--A. Yes.

Q. In how many ways?--A. In two only.

Q. What is the first?--A. When either of them commits adultery.

Q. What is the second?--A. When either of them dies.

Q. After one dies, may the other lawfully marry again?--A. Yes.

Page 112: Q. How will G.o.d punish those who break this commandment in the world to come?--A. In everlasting fire."

How sacred is the marriage of slaves! They cannot even go through the _form_, without the consent of their owners. And if the owner of two bodies consents to the performance of the ceremony "by a minister or some other lawful person," and G.o.d himself "is really present to witness the marriage," the law, notwithstanding, declares the so-called marriage to be as complete a nullity as the union of any other kind of live-stock! It declares that those whom G.o.d hath joined may be put asunder, whenever the owner pleases; as if, wis.h.i.+ng to raise money to pay his debts, he finds it more convenient to sell the wife at auction to pledging his bank-stock; or if, wis.h.i.+ng to remove, he thinks it will be better economy to take his stock with him than sell out, perhaps at a sacrifice, and buy again an inferior article! In order to be able to live with his wife at all, Henry Brown was obliged to hire her of her owner for fifty dollars a year; and, when her master became short of funds, he sold the wife and three children, before Brown's very face, to a Methodist minister,--one of those holy men who are "called of G.o.d" and "solemnly set apart" to preach to all men the gospel of love! So sacred is the marriage of slaves!

There is no such thing as a sacred marriage among slaves. Marriage, with them, at its best estate, is but concubinage. The relation _must_ be entered into when and as the owner orders! It is changed whenever, in his good pleasure, he wills that it shall change! It ends when he wills that it shall end! Wherein is the union among the _human_ stock, on the Southern plantations, regarded as more sacred and lasting than the union among the _brute_ stock? In both cases, the law considers the union as a merely animal relation, for an animal purpose,--the increase, perhaps the improvement, of the breed! So sacred is the marriage of slaves!

The following advertis.e.m.e.nts, and hundreds of similar ones might be cited, throw light on the subject:--

From the "Richmond Enquirer," Feb. 20, 1838:

"STOP THE RUNAWAY!!!--$25 Reward. Ran away from the Eagle Tavern, a negro fellow, named Nat. _He is no doubt attempting to follow his wife, who was lately sold to a speculator, named Redmond._ The above reward will be paid by Mrs. Lucy M. Downman, of Suss.e.x county, Va."

From the "Richmond (Va.) Compiler," Sept. 8, 1837:

"RAN AWAY FROM THE SUBSCRIBER--BEN. He ran off _without any known cause_, and _I suppose he is aiming to go to his wife, who was carried from the neighborhood last winter_. JOHN HUNT."

From the "Lexington (Ky.) Intelligencer," July 7, 1838:

"$160 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscribers, living in this city, on Sat.u.r.day, 16th inst. a negro man, named d.i.c.k, about 37 years of age. _It is highly probable said boy will make for New Orleans, as he has a wife living in that city, and he has been heard to say frequently that he was determined to go to New Orleans._

DRAKE & THOMPSON.

"Lexington, June 17, 1838."

"$50 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, his negro man, Pauladore, commonly called Paul. I understand Gen. R. Y. Hayne _has purchased his wife and children_ from H. L. Pinckney, Esq. and has them now on his plantation at Goosecreek, where, no doubt, the fellow is frequently _lurking_.

T. DAVIS."

The wife has been sold to the speculator in human fles.h.!.+ The sacred relation has been for ever sundered by G.o.d's overseer! The husband has been orally taught to say,--"Thou shalt not commit adultery," and to consider such to be a divine command. But he is strong and healthy, and his master orders him to live with another woman. What is he to do? If he obeys, he commits adultery, and disobeys G.o.d's commands. Truly a difficult matter to settle!

What ardent prayers will the church send up to heaven, that their brother may have strength given to him to enable him to save his soul alive! What earnest entreaties! How solemnly will the church remonstrate with its member against the commission of so great a sin! And, when prayers, entreaties, remonstrances, have all been tried and have failed, how sternly will the church proceed to the last extremity,--excommunication! If the man who marries his deceased wife's sister must be cut off from "members.h.i.+p in the Saviour's body" as impure,[N] how much more must that man be cut off who is faithless during his wife's lifetime?

How admirably does the Savannah River Baptist a.s.sociation harmonize the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d and mammon, and reconcile obedience to the commands of the master with obedience to G.o.d! This a.s.sociation, in reply to the question (Brooke's "Slavery," p. 38),--

"Whether, in a case of involuntary separation, of such a character as to preclude all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought to be allowed to marry again,"

Answer--

"That such separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is civilly a separation by death; and they believe, that, in the sight of G.o.d, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages in such cases would be to expose the parties, not only to stronger hards.h.i.+ps and strong temptation, but to church-censure for acting in obedience to their masters, who cannot be expected to acquiesce in a regulation at variance with justice to the slaves, and to the spirit of that command which regulates marriage among Christians. The slaves are not free agents; and a dissolution by death is not more entirely without their consent, and beyond their control, than by such separation."

A similar decision was made by the s.h.i.+loh Baptist a.s.sociation in Virginia. This question was presented for solution ("The Church as it is," pp. 76, 77),--

"Is a servant, whose husband or wife has been sold by his or her master into a distant country, to be permitted to marry again?"

The query was referred to a committee, who made the following report; which, after discussion, was adopted:--

"That, in view of the circ.u.mstances in which servants in this country are placed, the committee are unanimous in the opinion, that it is better to permit servants thus circ.u.mstanced to take another husband or wife."

Convenient truth! A different rule would lessen the productiveness of the master's stock! Can any man who owns the body of his sister be expected to acquiesce in a regulation which would deprive his property of half its value!

But, suppose the master wishes to sell the female slave for purposes of licentiousness, or suppose the master is himself impure, is this agreeable to the order of Divine Providence? Does any one say that either law or public opinion protects the female slave from the brutality of her master? The great frequency of outrages of this kind is demonstrated by the tens of thousands of slaves, more or less white, who are found at the South. It was a Southerner who said, that the best blood of Virginia flowed in the veins of her slaves!

From the "Richmond (Va.) Whig:"

"$100 REWARD will be given for the apprehension of my negro(?) Edmund Kenney. _He has straight hair, and complexion so nearly white, that it is believed a stranger would suppose there was no African blood in him._ He was with my boy d.i.c.k a short time since in Norfolk, _and offered him for sale_, and was apprehended, _but escaped under pretence of being a white man_!

"January 6, 1836. ANDERSON BOWLES."

From the "Republican Banner and Nashville Whig" of July 14, 1849: