Governor McDuffie, in his speech of 1834 to the South Carolina
Legislature, characterized the Federal Constitution as "that miserable
mockery of blurred, and obliterated, and tattered parchment." Judging
from their conduct, the slaveholders, while fully concurring with the
Governor in his contempt for the national parchment, have quite as
little respect for their own State Constitution and Laws.
The "tattered parchment" of which Mr. McDuffie speaks, declares that
"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the several States." Art. IV. Sec. 2.
Notwithstanding this express provision, there are in almost every slave
State, if not in all, laws for seizing, imprisoning, and then selling as
slaves for life, citizens having black or yellow complexions, entering
within their borders. This is done under pretence that the individuals
are supposed to be fugitives from bondage. When circumstances forbid
such a supposition, other devices are adopted, for nullifying the
provision we have quoted. By a law of Louisiana, every free negro or
mulatto, arriving on board any vessel as a _mariner_ or passenger, shall
be immediately imprisoned till the departure of the vessel, when he is
to be compelled to depart in her. If such free negro or mulatto returns
to the State, he is to be imprisoned for FIVE years.
The jailor of Savannah some time since reported TEN STEWARDS as being in
his custody. These were free citizens of other States, deprived of their
liberty solely on account of the complexion their Maker had given them,
and in direct violation of the express language of the Federal
Constitution. If any free negro or mulatto enters the State of
Mississippi, for any cause however urgent, any white citizen may cause
him to be punished by the Sheriff with thirty-nine lashes, and if he
does not immediately thereafter leave the State, he is SOLD AS A SLAVE.
In Maryland, a free negro or mulatto, coming into the State, is fined
$20, and if he returns he is fined $500, and on default of payment, is
sold AS A SLAVE. Truly indeed have the slaveholders rendered the
Constitution a blurred, obliterated, and tattered parchment. But
whenever this same Constitution can, by the grossest perversion, be made
instrumental in upholding and perpetuating human bondage, then it
acquires, for the time, a marvellous sanctity in their eyes, and they
are seized with a holy indignation at the very suspicion of its
profanation.
The readiness with which Southern Governors prefer the most false and
audacious claims, under color of Constitutional authority, exhibits a
state of society in which truth and honor are but little respected.
In 1833, seventeen slaves effected their escape from Virginia in a boat,
and finally reached New York. To recover their slaves _as such_, a
judicial investigation in New York would be necessary, and the various
claimants would be required to prove their property. A more convenient
mode presented itself. The Governor of Virginia made a requisition on
the Executive of New York for them as fugitive _felons_, and on this
requisition, a warrant was issued for their arrest and surrender. The
pretended felony was stealing the _boat_ in which they had escaped.
In 1839, a slave escaped from Virginia on board of a vessel bound to New
York. It was _suspected_, but without a particle of proof, that some of
the crew had favored his escape; and immediately the master made oath
that _three_ of the sailors, naming them, had feloniously STOLEN the
slave; and the Governor, well knowing there was no slave-market in New
York, and that no man could there be held in slavery, had the hardihood
to demand the surrender of the mariners, on the charge of grand larceny;
and, in his correspondence with the Governor of New York, declared the
slave was worth six or seven hundred dollars, and remarked that
_stealing_ was "recognized as a CRIME by all laws, human and divine."
In 1841, a female slave, belonging to a man named Flournoy, in Georgia,
was discovered on board a vessel about to sail for New York, and was
recovered by her master. It was afterwards supposed, from the woman's
story, that she had been induced by one of the passengers to attempt her
escape. Whereupon Flournoy made oath that John Greenman did feloniously
STEAL his slave. But the Governor of New York had already refused to
surrender citizens of his State, on a charge so palpably false and
absurd. It was therefore deemed necessary to trump up a very different
charge against the accused; and hence Flournoy made a second affidavit,
that John Greenman did _feloniously steal and take away three blankets,
two shawls, three frocks, one pair of earrings, and two finger-rings,
the property of deponent_. Armed with these affidavits, the Governor
demanded the surrender of Greenman under the Constitution. Not an
intimation was given by His Excellency, when he made the demand, of the
_real facts_ of the case, which, in a subsequent correspondence, he was
compelled to admit. It turned out that the woman, instead of being
stolen, went voluntarily, and no doubt joyfully, on board the vessel;
and that the wearing apparel, &c., were the clothes and ornaments worn
by her; nor was there a pretence that Greenman had ever touched them, or
ever had them in his possession.
In 1838, Rev. John B. Mahan, a Methodist preacher, residing in Ohio, was
reported to have given aid and shelter to fugitive slaves from Kentucky,
and forthwith the Grand Jury of Mason County, in that State, indicted
him, as being "late of the County of Mason," for aiding two slaves in
making their escape from said county. On the strength of this
indictment, Governor Clark, of Kentucky, issued his requisition on the
Governor of Ohio, wherein he stated that the said Mahan "_has fled from
justice, and is now going at large in the State of Ohio_;" and that by
virtue of the authority vested in him by the "Constitution and Laws of
the United States, he did demand the said John B. Mahan, as _a fugitive
from the justice of the laws of this State_." On this requisition Mahan
was seized, carried into Kentucky, put in irons, and kept in prison as a
felon for about ten weeks, when, after a trial which lasted six days, he
was acquitted by the jury. Now it was a matter of notoriety, and
_admitted_ by the prosecution, that Mahan had not been in Kentucky for
about _twenty years_!! Yet day after day was spent in endeavors to
procure the conviction of a man who had committed no offence against the
laws of the State, and whose person had been seized in consequence of a
gross fraud, and a palpable and acknowledged falsehood. But how happened
it that the slaveholders permitted their prey to escape? Fortunately for
Mahan, the Governor of Ohio, after surrendering him, discovered the
imposition that had been practised, and officially informed the Governor
of Kentucky, that he could not consent that a citizen of Ohio should be
taken to another State, and tried for an offence not committed within
her jurisdiction. The publication of this letter drew the attention of
the community to the infamous outrage that had been practised. If, after
this, Mahan had been Lynched, or even judicially punished, a controversy
would have arisen between the two States, which would necessarily have
given new strength and influence to the anti-slavery cause.
But perhaps the most insolent attempt yet made to pervert the Federal
Constitution to the support of slavery, was the expedient devised in
Alabama to muzzle the Northern press. An article appeared in a newspaper
published in New York, in 1835, which gave offence to certain planters
in that State; and forthwith a grand jury, _on their oaths_, indicted
the New York publisher, "late of the County of Tuscaloosa," for
endeavoring to excite insurrection among the slaves, by circulating a
seditious paper; and on this indictment the Governor had the impudence
to make a formal requisition for the surrender of the publisher, as a
_fugitive from justice_, although he had never breathed the air of
Alabama.
We have said that the slaveholders hold their _own_ laws and
Constitutions in the same contempt as those of the Federal Government,
whenever they conflict with the security and permanency of slavery. One
of the most inestimable of constitutional privileges is TRIAL BY JURY;
and this, as we have seen, is trampled under foot with impunity, at the
mandate of the slaveholders. Even JOHN TYLER, as it appears, is for
inflicting summary punishment on abolitionists, by a Lynch club,
"without resorting to any other tribunal."
We now proceed to inquire how far they respect the liberty of speech and
of the press.