An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans Part 4

The following quotation shows how the citizens of this country bear comparison with men _called_ savages. A recent traveller in East Florida says: "Another trait in the character of the Seminole Indians, is their great indulgence to their slaves. The greatest pressure of hunger or thirst never occasions them to impose onerous labors on the negroes, or to dispose of them, though tempted by high offers, if the latter are unwilling to be sold."

PROP. 4.--_Slaves can have no legal claim to any property._

The civil code of Louisiana declares: "_All that a slave possesses belongs to his master_--he possesses nothing of his own, except his peculium, that is to say, the sum of money or moveable estate, which _his master chooses he should possess_."--"Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting property."--"Slaves cannot dispose of, or receive, by donation, unless they have been enfranchised conformably to law, or are expressly enfranchised by the act, by which the donation is made to them."

In South Carolina "it is not lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c., without a license from his owner; nor shall any slave be allowed to keep any boat or canoe, for his own benefit, or raise any horses, cattle, sheep, or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, boats, canoes, horses, &c., &c.; and it shall be lawful for _any person_ to seize and take away from any slave all such goods, boats, &c., and to deliver the same into the hands of the nearest justice of the peace; and if the said justice be satisfied that such seizure has been made according to law, he shall order the goods to be sold at public outcry; one half of the moneys arising from the sale to go to the State, and the other half to him or them that sue for the same." In North Carolina there is a similar law; but half of the proceeds of the sale goes to the county poor, and half to the informer.

In Georgia, a fine of thirty dollars a week is imposed upon any master who allows his slave to hire himself out for his own benefit. In Virginia, if a master permit his slave to hire himself out, he is subject to a fine, from ten to twenty dollars; and it is lawful for any person, and the _duty_ of the Sheriff, to apprehend the slave. In Maryland, the master, by a similar offence, except during twenty days at harvest time, incurs a penalty of twenty dollars per month.

In Mississippi, if a master allow his slave to cultivate cotton for his own use, he incurs a fine of fifty dollars; and if he license his slave to trade on his own account, he forfeits fifty dollars for each and every offence. Any person trading with a slave forfeits four times the value of the article purchased; and if unable to pay, he receives thirty-nine lashes, and pays the cost.

Among the Romans, the Grecians, and the ancient Germans, slaves were permitted to acquire and enjoy property of considerable value, as their own. This property was called the slave's _peculium_; and "the many anxious provisions of the Imperial Code on the subject, plainly show the general extent and importance of such acquisitions."--"The Roman slave was also empowered by law to enter into commercial and other contracts, by which the master was bound, to the extent of the value of the slave's _peculium_."--"The Grecian slaves had also their _peculium_; and were rich enough to make periodical presents to their masters, as well as often to purchase their freedom."

"The Helots of Sparta were so far from being dest.i.tute of property, or of legal powers necessary to its acquisition, that they were farmers of the lands of their masters, at low fixed rents, which the proprietor could not raise without dishonor."

"In our own day, the Polish slaves, prior to any recent alleviations of their lot, were not only allowed to hold property, but endowed with it by their lords."--"In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the money and effects, which a slave acquires, by his labor at times set apart for his own use, or by any other honest means, are legally his own, and cannot be seized by the master."--"In Africa, slaves may acquire extensive property, which their sable masters cannot take away. In New-Calabar, there is a man named Amachree, who has more influence and wealth than all the rest of the community, though he himself is a purchased slave, brought from the Braspan country; he has offered the price of a hundred slaves for his freedom; but according to the laws of the country he cannot obtain it, though his master, who is a poor and obscure individual, would gladly let him have it."

Among the Jews, a servant, or slave, often filled the highest offices of honor and profit, connected with the family. Indeed slavery among this ancient people was in its mildest, patriarchal form; and the same character is now stamped upon the _domestic_ slavery of Africa. St. Paul says, "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, [the Hebrew word translated _servant_ means _slave_] though he be lord of all." Gal. iv. 1. Again; "A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren." Proverbs, xvii. 2. The wealthy patriarch Abraham, before the birth of Isaac, designed to make his head servant, Eleazer of Damascus, his heir.

PROP. 5.--_No colored man can be evidence against a white man, &c._

This is an almost universal rule of slave law. The advocates of slavery seem to regard it as a necessary consequence of the system, which neither admits of concealment, nor needs it. "In one or two of our States this rule is founded upon _usage_; in others it is sanctioned by _express legislation_."

So long as this rule is acted upon, it is very plain, that all regulations made for the protection of the slave are perfectly useless;--however grievous his wrongs, they _cannot be proved_. The master is merely obliged to take the precaution not to starve, or mangle, or murder his negroes, _in the presence of a white man_. No matter if five hundred colored people be present, they cannot testify to the fact. Blackstone remarks, that "rights would be declared in vain, and in vain directed to be observed, if there were no method of recovering and a.s.serting those rights, when wrongfully withheld, or invaded."

Stephens says: "It seems to result from the brief and general accounts which we have of the law of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, though I find it nowhere expressly noticed, that slaves there are not, in all cases at least, incompetent witnesses. But even in the French Windward Islands the evidence of negro slaves was admitted against all free persons, the master only excepted; and that in criminal as well as in civil cases, where the testimony of white people could not be found to establish the facts in dispute. The _Code Noir_ merely allowed a slave's testimony to be heard by the judge, as a suggestion which might throw light on other evidence, without amounting of itself to any degree of legal proof. But the Sovereign Council of Martinique, humbly represented to his majesty that great inconveniences might result from the execution of this law, by the _impunity_ of many crimes, which _could not be proved otherwise than by the testimony of slaves_; and they prayed that such evidence might be received in all cases in which there should not be sufficient proof by free witnesses. In consequence of this, the article in question was varied so far as to admit the testimony of slaves, when white witnesses were wanting, except against their masters."

PROP. 6.--_The master has absolute power to punish a slave, &c._

Stroud says, "There was a time in many, if not in all the slaveholding districts of our country, when the murder of a slave was followed by a pecuniary fine only. In one State, the change of the law in this respect has been very recent. At the present date (1827) I am happy to say the wilful, malicious, deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is _declared_ to be punishable with death in every State.

The evil is not that the laws _sanction_ crime, but that they do not _punish_ it. And this arises chiefly, if not solely, from the exclusion of the testimony, on the trial of a white person, of all those who are _not_ white."

"The conflicting influences of humanity and prejudice are strangely contrasted in the law of North Carolina on this subject. An act pa.s.sed in 1798, runs thus: 'Whereas by another act of a.s.sembly, pa.s.sed in the year 1774, the killing of a slave, however wanton, cruel, and deliberate, is only punishable in the first instance by imprisonment, and paying the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of criminality between the murder of a white person and one _who is equally a human creature, but merely of a different complexion_, is disgraceful to humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free Christian, and enlightened country, be it enacted, &c., that if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, such 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 a.s.sembly of this State, or to any slave in the act of resistance[N] to his lawful owner or master, or to any slave_ DYING _under_ MODERATE CORRECTION.'"

[Footnote N: "It has been judicially determined that it is _justifiable_ to kill a slave, resisting, or _offering to resist_ his master by force."--_Stroud._]

In the laws of Tennessee and Georgia, there is a similar proviso. Where could such a monstrous anomaly be found, save in a code of slave laws?

_Die_ of _moderate_ punishment!! Truly, this _is_ an unveiling of consciences!

"To set the matter in its proper light, it may be added that a proclamation, of _outlawry_[O] against a slave is authorized, whenever he runs away from his master, conceals himself in some obscure retreat, and to sustain life, kills a _hog_, or some animal of the cattle kind!

[Footnote O: "The outlawry of a slave is not, I believe, an unusual occurrence. Very recently, a particular account was given of the killing of a black man, _not charged with any offence_, by a person in pursuit of an _outlawed_ slave; owing, as it was stated, to the person killed not _answering_ a call made by his pursuers. Whether the call was _heard_ or not, of course could not be a.s.sertained, nor did it appear to have excited any inquiry."--_Stroud._]

"A pecuniary mulct was the only restraint upon the wilful murder of a slave, from the year 1740 to 1821, a period of more than eighty years.

I find in the case of _The State vs. M'Gee, 1 Bay's Reports_, 164, it is said incidentally by Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the State, that the _frequency_ of the offence was owing to the nature of the punishment. This was said in the public court-house by men of great respectability; nevertheless, thirty years elapsed before a change of the law was effected. So far as I have been able to learn, the following section has disgraced the statute-book of South Carolina from the year 1740 to the present hour: 'In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, _cruelly_ scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment,--[_otherwise than by whipping, or beating, with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch, or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining, or imprisoning such slave_,]--every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.' Here is direct legislation to _sanction_ beating without limit, with horsewhip or cowskin,--the application of irons to the human body,--and perpetual incarceration in a dungeon, according to the will of the master; and the mutilation of limbs is paid by a trifling penalty!

"The revised code of Louisiana declares: 'The slave is entirely subject to the will of the master, who may correct and chastise him, though not with _unusual_ rigor, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death.'" Who shall decide what punishment is _unusual_?

In Missouri, if a slave refuses to obey his or her master, mistress, overseer, or employer, in any lawful commands, such slaves may be committed to the county jail, there to remain as long as his owner pleases.

In some of the States there are indeed restraining laws; but they are completely ineffectual, from the difficulty of obtaining the evidence of _white men_.

"The same despotic power can be exerted by the attorney, manager, driver, or any other person who is, for the time being, placed over the slave by order of the owner, or his delegates. The following is the language of the Louisiana code; and it represents the established customs of all the slaveholding States: 'The condition of a slave being merely a pa.s.sive one, his subordination to his master, and to all who _represent_ him, is not susceptible of any modification, or restriction, [except in what can incite the slave to the commission of crime] in such manner, that he owes to his master, and to all his family, a respect without bounds, and an absolute obedience; and he is consequently to execute all the orders, which he receives from his said master, or from them.'"

What chance of mercy the slave has from the generality of overseers, may be conjectured from the following testimony given by a distinguished Virginian: Mr. Wirt, in his "Life of Patrick Henry," speaking of the different cla.s.ses in Virginia, says: "Last and lowest, a _feculum_ of beings called overseers--the _most abject_, _degraded_, _unprincipled_ race--always cap in hand to the Dons who employed them, and furnis.h.i.+ng materials for the exercise of their pride, insolence, and spirit of domination."

The Gentoo code, the most ancient in the world, allowed a wife, a son, a pupil, a younger brother, or a slave, to be whipped with a lash, or bamboo twig, in such a manner as not to occasion any dangerous hurt; and whoever transgressed the rule, suffered the punishment of a thief. In this case, the slave and other members of the family were _equally_ protected.

The Mosaic law was as follows: "If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, _he shall let him go free_ for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, _he shall let him go free_ for his tooth's sake."

Exodus, xxi. 26, 27.

PROP. 7.--_The slave never allowed to resist a white man._

It is enacted in Georgia, "If any slave shall presume to strike _any_ white man, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice, shall for the _first_ offence, suffer such punishment as the said justice thinks fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, _death_." It is the same in South Carolina, excepting that death is there the punishment of the _third_ offence. However wanton and dangerous the attack upon the slave may be, he must submit; there is only one proviso--he may be excused for striking in defence of his _master_, _overseer_, &c., and of _their_ property. In Maryland, a colored man, even if he be _free_, may have his ears cropped for striking a white man. In Kentucky, it is enacted that "if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or _free_, shall at any time lift his or her hand, in opposition to _any_ person not colored, they shall, the offence being proved before a justice of the peace, receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on." There is a ridiculous gravity in the following section of a law in Louisiana: "Free people of color ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but on the contrary, they ought to yield to them _on every occasion_, and never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence."

Such laws are a positive _inducement_ to violent and vicious white men to oppress and injure people of color. In this point of view, a negro becomes the slave of every white man in the community. The brutal drunkard, or the ferocious madman, can beat, rob, and mangle him with perfect impunity. Dr. Torrey, in his "Portraiture of Domestic Slavery,"

relates an affecting anecdote, which happened near Was.h.i.+ngton. A free negro walking along the road, was set upon by two intoxicated ruffians on horseback, who, without any provocation, began to torture him for _amus.e.m.e.nt_. One of them tied him to the tail of his horse, and thus dragged him along, while the other followed, applying the lash. The poor fellow died by the roadside, in consequence of this treatment.

The _owner_ may prosecute when a slave is rendered unfit for labor, by personal violence; and in the reports of these cases many painful facts come to light which would otherwise have remained for ever unknown. See Judicial Reports.

PROP. 8.--_Slaves cannot redeem themselves or change masters._

Stroud says, "as to the right of _redemption_, this proposition holds good in all the slaveholding States; and is equally true as it respects the right to compel a _change of masters_, except in Louisiana.

According to the new civil code of that State, the latter privilege may sometimes, perhaps, be obtained by the slave. But the master must first be _convicted_ of cruelty--a task so formidable that it can hardly be ranked among possibilities; and secondly, it is _optional_ with the judge, whether or not, to make the decree in favor of the slave."

If a slave should _not_ obtain a decree in his favor, what has he to expect from a master exasperated against him, for making the attempt?

At Athens, so deservedly admired for the mildness of her slave laws, the door of freedom was opened widely. The abused slaves might fly to the Temple of Theseus, whence no one had a right to take them, except for the purpose of publicly investigating their wrongs. If their complaints were well founded, they were either enfranchised, or delivered to more merciful hands.

In the Roman Empire, from the time of Adrian and the Antonines, slaves were protected by the laws, and undue severity being proved, they received freedom or a different master.

By the _Code Noir_ of the French islands, a slave cruelly treated is forfeited to the crown; and the court, which judges the offence, has power to confer freedom on the sufferer. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, a slave on complaint of ill-usage obtains public protection; he may be manumitted, or change his master.

PROP. 9.--_Slave unprotected in his domestic relations._

In proof of this, it is only necessary to repeat that the slave and his wife, and his daughters, are considered as the _property_ of their owners, and compelled to yield implicit obedience--that he is allowed to give no evidence--that he must not resist _any_ white man, under _any_ circ.u.mstances which do not interfere with his _master's_ interest--and finally, that public opinion ridicules the slave's claim to any exclusive right in his own wife and children.

In Athens, the female slave could demand protection from the magistrates; and if her complaints of insulting treatment were well founded, she could be sold to another master, who, in his turn, forfeited his claim by improper conduct.

PROP. 10.--_The laws obstruct emanc.i.p.ation._