The Constitutions of all the slave States guarantee, in the most solemn
and explicit terms, the Liberty of the Press; but it is well understood
that there is one exception to its otherwise unbounded license--Property
in human flesh is too sacred to be assailed by the press. The attributes
of the Deity may be discussed, but not the rights of the master. The
characters of public, and even of private men, may be vilified at
pleasure, provided no reproach is flung upon the _slaveholder_. Every
abuse in Church or State may be ferreted out and exposed, except the
cruelties practiced upon the slaves, unless when they happen to exceed
the ordinary standard of cruelty established by general usage. Every
measure of policy may be advocated, except that of free labor; every
question of right may be examined, except that of a man to himself;
every dogma in theology may be propagated, except that of the sinfulness
of the slave code. The very instant the press ventures beyond its
prescribed limits, the constitutional barriers erected for its
protection sink into the dust, and a censorship, the more stern and
vindictive from being illegal, crushes it into submission. The midnight
burglary perpetrated upon the Charleston Post-office, and the
conflagration of the anti-slavery papers found in it, are well known.
These papers had been sent to distinguished citizens, but it was deemed
inexpedient to _permit_ them to read facts and arguments against
slavery. Pains will be taken to prevent _you_ from reading this address,
and vast pains have been taken to keep slaveholders as well as others
ignorant of every fact and argument that militates against the system.
Hence Mr. Calhoun's famous bill, authorizing every Southern post-master
to abstract from the mails every paper relating to slavery. Hence the
insane efforts constantly made to expurgate the literature of the world
of all recognition of the rights of _black_ men. Novels, annuals, poems,
and histories, containing sentiments hostile to human bondage, are
proscribed at the South, and Northern publishers have had the extreme
baseness to publish mutilated editions for the Southern market.[11]
[11] The Harpers, of New York, in reply to a letter from the
South, complaining of the anti-slavery sentiments in a book
they had recently published, stated, "since the receipt of
your letter we have published an edition of the 'Woods and
Fields,' _in which the offensive matter has been omitted_."
In some of the slave States laws have been passed establishing a
censorship of the press, for the exclusive and special benefit of the
slaveholders. Some time since an anti-slavery pamphlet was mailed at New
York, directed to a gentleman in Virginia. Presently a letter was
received from William Wilson, post-master at Lexington, Va., saying--
"I have to advise you that a law passed at the last session of
the Legislature of this State, which took effect on the first
day of this month, makes it the duty of the post-masters or
their assistants to report to some magistrate (under penalty of
from $50 to $200), the receipt of all _such_ publications at his
office; and if, on examination, the magistrate is of opinion
they come under the provision of the law, it is his duty to have
them BURNT in his presence--_which operation was performed on
the above mentioned pamphlet this morning_."
The Rev. Robert J. Breckenridge, a well-known zealous opponent of
abolition, edited, in 1835, "The Baltimore Religious Magazine." A number
of this magazine contained an article from a correspondent, entitled
"Bible-Slavery." The tone of this article not suiting the slave-breeders
of Petersburg (Virg.), the subscribers were deprived of the numbers
forwarded to them through the post-office of that town. The magazines
were taken from the Office, and on the 8th May, 1838, were burnt in the
street, before the door of the public reading-room, in the _presence and
by the direction of the Mayor and Recorder_!!
It is surely unnecessary to remark, that this Virginia law is in
contemptuous violation of the Constitution of Virginia, and of the
authority of the Federal Government. The act of Congress requires each
post-master to deliver the papers which come to his office to the
persons to whom they are directed, and they require him to take an oath
to fulfil his duty. The Virginia law imposes duties on an officer over
whom they have no control, utterly at variance with his oath, and the
obligations under which he assumed the office. If the postmaster must
select, under a heavy penalty, for a public bonfire, all papers bearing
on slavery, why may he not be hereafter required to select, for the same
fate, all papers hostile to Popery? Yet similar laws are now in force in
various slave States.
Not only is this espionage exercised over the mail, but measures are
taken to keep the community in ignorance of what is passing abroad in
relation to slavery, and what opinions are elsewhere held respecting it.
On the 1st of August, 1842, an interesting address was delivered in
Massachusetts, by the late Dr. Channing, in relation to West India
emancipation, embracing, as was natural and proper, reflections on
American slavery. This address was copied into a New York weekly paper,
and the number containing it was offered for sale, as usual, by the
agent of the periodical at Charleston. Instantly the agent was
prosecuted by the South Carolina Association, and was held to bail in
the sum of $1,000, to answer for his CRIME. Presently after, this same
agent received for sale a supply of "Dickens' Notes on the United
States," but having before his eyes the fear of the slaveholders, he
gave notice in the newspapers, that the book would "be submitted to
highly intelligent members of the South Carolina Association for
_inspection_, and IF the sale is approved by them, it will be for
sale--if not, not." And so the population of one of the largest cities
of the slave region were not permitted to read a book they were all
burning with impatience to see, till the volume had been first
_inspected_ by a self-constituted board of censors! The slaveholders,
however, were in this instance afraid to put their power to the
test--the people might have rebelled if forbidden to read the "Notes,"
and hence one of the most powerful, effective anti-slavery tracts yet
issued from the press was permitted to be circulated, because people
_would_ read what Dickens had written. Surely, fellow-citizens, you will
not accuse us of slander, when we say that the slaveholders have
abolished among you the liberty of the press. Remember the assertion of
the editor of the Missouri Argus: "Abolition editors in the slave States
will not dare to avow their opinions: it would be INSTANT DEATH to
them."