ANSWER. It was public opinion that _made him a slave_. In a republican
government the people make the laws, and those laws are merely public
opinion _in legal forms_. We repeat it,--public opinion made them
slaves, and keeps them slaves; in other words, it sunk them from men
to chattels, and now, forsooth, this same public opinion will see to
it, that these _chattels_ are treated like _men!_
By looking a little into this matter, and finding out how this 'public
opinion' (law) protects the slaves in some particulars, we can judge
of the amount of its protection in others. 1. It protects the slaves
from _robbery_, by declaring that those who robbed their mothers may
rob them and their children. "All negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes who
now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their
offspring, are hereby declared to be, and shall remain, forever,
hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the
mother."--Law of South Carolina, 2 Brevard's Digest, 229. Others of
the slave states have similar laws.
2. It protects their _persons_, by giving their master a right to
flog, wound, and beat them when he pleases. See Devereaux's North
Carolina Reports, 263.--Case of the State vs. Mann, 1829; in which the
Supreme Court decided, that a master who _shot_ at a female slave and
wounded her, because she got loose from him when he was flogging her,
and started to run from him, had violated _no law_, AND COULD NOT BE
INDICTED. It has been decided by the highest courts of the slave
states generally, that assault and battery upon a slave is not
indictable as a criminal offence.
The following decision on this point was made by the Supreme Court of
South Carolina in the case of the State vs. Cheetwood, 2 Hill's
Reports, 459.
_Protection of slaves_.--"The criminal offence of assault and battery
_cannot, at common law, be committed on the person of a slave_. For,
notwithstanding for some purposes a slave is regarded in law as a
person, yet generally he is a mere chattel personal, and his right of
personal protection belongs to his master, who can maintain an action
of trespass for the battery of his slave.
"There can be therefore no offence against the state for a mere
beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or
an attempt to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby
broken; for a slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of
being within the peace of the state. He is not a citizen, and _is not
in that character entitled to her protection_."
This 'public opinion' protects the _persons_ of the slaves by
depriving them of Jury trial;[28] their _consciences_, by forbidding
them to assemble for worship, unless their oppressors are present;[29]
their _characters_, by branding them as liars, in denying them their
oath in law;[30] their _modesty_, by leaving their master to clothe,
or let them go naked, as he pleases;[31] and their _health_, by
leaving him to feed or starve them, to work them, wet or dry, with or
without sleep, to lodge them, with or without covering, as the whim
takes him;[32] and their _liberty_, marriage relations, parental
authority, and filial obligations, by _annihilating_ the whole.[33]
This is the protection which 'PUBLIC OPINION,' in the form of _law_,
affords to the slaves; this is the chivalrous knight, always in
stirrups, with lance in rest, to champion the cause of the slaves.
[Footnote 28: Law of South Carolina. James' Digest, 392-3. Law of
Louisiana. Martin's Digest, 42. Law of Virginia. Rev. Code, 429.]
[Footnote 29: Miss. Rev. Code, 390. Similar laws exist in the slave
states generally.]
[Footnote 30: "A slave cannot be a witness against a white person,
either in a civil or criminal cause." Stroud's Sketch of the Laws of
Slavery, 65.]
[Footnote 31: Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, 132.]
[Footnote 32: Stroud's Sketch, 26-32.]
[Footnote 33: Stroud's Sketch, 22-24.]
Public opinion, protection to the slave! Brazen effrontery, hypocrisy,
and falsehood! We have, in the laws cited and referred to above, the
formal testimony of the Legislatures of the slave states, that,
'public opinion' does pertinaciously _refuse_ to protect the slaves;
not only so, but that it does itself persecute and plunder them all:
that it originally planned, and now presides over, sanctions, executes
and perpetuates the whole system of robbery, torture, and outrage
under which they groan.
In all the slave states, this 'public opinion' has taken away from the
slave his _liberty_; it has robbed him of his right to his own body,
of his right to improve his mind, of his right to read the Bible, of
his right to worship God according to his conscience, of his right to
receive and enjoy what he earns, of his right to live with his wife
and children, of his right to better his condition, of his right to
eat when he is hungry, to rest when he is tired, to sleep when be
needs it, and to cover his nakedness with clothing: this 'public
opinion' makes the slave a prisoner for life on the plantation, except
when his jailor pleases to let him out with a 'pass,' or sells him,
and transfers him in irons to another jail-yard: this 'public opinion'
traverses the country, buying up men, women, children--chaining them
in coffles, and driving them forever from their nearest friends; it
sets them on the auction table, to be handled, scrutinized, knocked
off to the highest bidder; it proclaims that they shall not have their
liberty; and, if their masters give it them, 'public opinion' seizes
and throws them back into slavery. This same 'public opinion' has
formally attached the following legal penalties to the following acts
of slaves.
If more than seven slaves are found together in any road, without a
white person, _twenty lashes a piece_; for visiting a plantation
without a written pass, ten lashes; for letting loose a boat from
where it is made fast, _thirty-nine lashes for the first offence_; and
for the second, '_shall have cut off from his head one ear_;' for
keeping or carrying a _club, thirty-nine lashes_; for having any
article for sale, without a ticket from his master, _ten lashes_; for
traveling in any other than 'the most usual and accustomed road,' when
going alone to any place, _forty lashes_; for traveling in the night,
without a pass, _forty lashes_; for being found in another person's
negro-quarters, _forty lashes_; for hunting with dogs in the woods,
_thirty lashes_; for being on _horseback_ without the written
permission of his master, _twenty-five lashes_; for riding or going
abroad in the night, or riding horses in the day time, without leave,
a slave may be whipped, _cropped_, or _branded in the cheek_ with the
letter R, or otherwise punished, _not extending to life_, or so as to
render him _unfit for labor_. The laws referred to may be found by
consulting 2 Brevard's Digest, 228, 213, 216; Haywood's Manual, 78,
chap. 13, pp. 518, 529; 1 Virginia Revised Code, 722-3; Prince's
Digest, 454; 2 Missouri Laws, 741; Mississippi Revised Code, 571. Laws
similar to these exist throughout the southern slave code. Extracts
enough to fill a volume might be made from these laws, showing that
the protection which 'public opinion' grants to the slaves, is hunger,
nakedness, terror, bereavements, robbery, imprisonment, the stocks,
iron collars, hunting and worrying them with dogs and guns, mutilating
their bodies, and murdering them.
A few specimens of the laws and the judicial decisions on them, will
show what is the state of 'public opinion' among slaveholders towards
their slaves. Let the following suffice.--'Any person may lawfully
kill a slave, who has been outlawed for running away and lurking in
swamps, &c.'--Law of North Carolina; Judge Stroud's Sketch of the
Slave Laws, 103; Haywood's Manual, 524. 'A slave _endeavoring_ to
entice another slave to runaway, if provisions, &c. be prepared for
the purpose of aiding in such running away, shall be punished with
DEATH. And a slave who shall aid the slave so endeavoring to entice
another slave to run away, shall also suffer DEATH.'--Law of South
Carolina; Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws, 103-4; 2 Brevard's Digest,
233, 244. Another law of South Carolina provides that if a slave
shall, when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by '_any
white_ person,' (no matter how crazy or drunk,) 'such white person may
seize and chastise him; and if the slave shall _strike_ such white
person, such slave may be lawfully killed.'--2 Brevard's Digest, 231.
The following is a law of Georgia.--'If any slave shall presume to
strike any white person, such slave shall, upon trial and conviction
before the justice or justices, suffer such punishment for the first
offence as they shall think fit, not extending to life or limb; and
for the second offence, DEATH.'--Prince's Digest, 450. The same law
exists in South Carolina, with this difference, that death is made the
punishment for the _third_ offence. In both states, the law contains
this remarkable proviso: 'Provided always, that such striking be not
done by the command and in the defence of the person or property of
the owner, or other person having the government of such slave, in
which case the slave shall be wholly excused!' According to this law,
if a slave, by the direction of his OVERSEER, strike a white man who
is beating said overseer's _dog_, 'the slave shall be wholly excused;'
but if the white man has rushed upon the slave himself, instead of the
_dog_, and is furiously beating him, if the slave strike back but a
single blow, the legal penalty is 'ANY _punishment_ not extending to
life or limb;' and if the tortured slave has a second onset made upon
him, and, after suffering all but death, again strike back in
self-defence, the law KILLS him for it. So, if a female slave, in
obedience to her mistress, and in defence of 'her property,' strike a
white man who is kicking her mistress' pet kitten, she 'shall be
wholly excused,' saith the considerate law: but if the unprotected
girl, when beaten and kicked _herself_, raise her hand against her
brutal assailant, the law condemns her to 'any punishment, not
extending to life or limb; and if a wretch assail her again, and
attempt to violate her chastity, and the trembling girl, in her
anguish and terror, instinctively raise her hand against him in
self-defence, she shall, saith the law, 'suffer DEATH.'
Reader, this diabolical law is the 'public opinion' of Georgia and
South Carolina toward the slaves. This is the vaunted 'protection'
afforded them by their 'high-souled chivalry.' To show that the
'public opinion' of the slave states far more effectually protects the
_property_ of the master than the _person_ of the slave, the reader is
referred to two laws of Louisiana, passed in 1819. The one attaches a
penalty 'not exceeding one thousand dollars,' and 'imprisonment not
exceeding two years,' to the crime of 'cutting or breaking any iron
chain or collar,' which any master of slaves has used to prevent their
running away; the other, a penalty 'not exceeding five hundred
dollars,' to 'wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye,
_cruelly_ burning, or depriving any slave of _any limb_.' Look at
it--the most horrible dismemberment conceivable cannot be punished by
a fine of _more_ than five hundred dollars. The law expressly fixes
that, as the utmost limit, and it _may_ not be half that sum; not a
single moment's imprisonment stays the wretch in his career, and the
next hour he may cut out another slave's tongue, or burn his hand off.
But let the same man break a chain put upon a slave, to keep him from
running away, and, besides paying double the penalty that could be
exacted from him for cutting off a slave's leg, the law imprisons him
not exceeding two years!
This law reveals the _heart_ of slaveholders towards their slaves,
their diabolical indifference to the most excruciating and protracted
torments inflicted on them by '_any_ person;' it reveals, too, the
_relative_ protection afforded by 'public opinion' to the _person_ of
the slave, in appalling contrast with the vastly surer protection
which it affords to the master's _property_ in the slave. The wretch
who cuts out the tongue, tears out the eyes, shoots off the arms, or
burns off the feet of a slave, over a slow fire, _cannot_ legally be
fined more than five hundred dollars; but if he should in pity loose a
chain from his galled neck, placed there by the master to keep him
from escaping, and thus put his property in some jeopardy, he may be
fined _one thousand dollars_, and thrust into a dungeon for two years!
and this, be it remembered, not for _stealing_ the slave from the
master, nor for _enticing_, or even advising him to run away, or
giving him any information how he can effect his escape; but merely,
because, touched with sympathy for the bleeding victim, as he sees the
rough iron chafe the torn flesh at every turn, he removes it;--and, as
escape without this incumbrance would be easier than with it, the
master's property in the slave is put at some risk. For having caused
this slight risk, the law provides a punishment--fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding _two years_. We
say 'slight risk,' because the slave may not be disposed to encounter
the dangers, and hunger, and other sufferings of the woods, and the
certainty of terrible inflictions if caught; and if he should attempt
it, the risk of losing him is small. An advertisement of five lines
will set the whole community howling on his track; and the trembling
and famished fugitive is soon scented out in his retreat, and dragged
back and delivered over to his tormentors.
The preceding law is another illustration of the 'protection' afforded
to the limbs and members of slaves, by 'public opinion' among
slaveholders.
Here follow two other illustrations of the brutal indifference of
'public opinion' to the _torments_ of the slave, while it is full of
zeal to compensate the master, if any one disables his slave so as to
lessen his market value. The first is a law of South Carolina. It
provides, that if a slave, engaged in his owner's service, be attacked
by a person 'not having sufficient cause for so doing,' and if the
slave shall be '_maimed or disabled_' by him, so that the owner
suffers a loss from his inability to labor, the person maiming him
shall pay for his 'lost time,' and 'also the charges for the cure of
the slave!' This Vandal law does not deign to take the least notice of
the anguish of the '_maimed' slave_, made, perhaps, a groaning cripple
for life; the horrible wrong and injury done to _him_, is passed over
in utter silence. It is thus declared to be _not a criminal act_. But
the pecuniary interests of the master are not to be thus neglected by
'public opinion'. Oh no! its tender bowels run over with sympathy at
the master's injury in the 'lost _time_' of his slave, and it
carefully provides that he shall have pay for the whole of it.--See 2
_Brevard's Digest_, 231, 2.
A law similar to the above has been passed in Louisiana, which
contains an additional provision for the benefit of the
_master_--ordaining, that 'if the slave' (thus _maimed and disabled_,)
'be forever rendered unable to work,' the person maiming, shall pay
the master the appraised value of the slave before the injury, and
shall, in addition, _take_ the slave, and maintain him during life.'
Thus 'public opinion' transfers the helpless cripple from the hand of
his master, who, as he has always had the benefit of his services,
might possibly feel some tenderness for him, and puts him in the sole
power of the wretch who has disabled him for life--protecting the
victim from the fury of his tormentor, by putting him into his hands!
What but butchery by piecemeal can, under such circumstances, be
expected from a man brutal enough at first to 'maim' and 'disable'
him, and now exasperated by being obliged to pay his full value to the
master, and to have, in addition, the daily care and expense of his
maintenance. Since writing the above, we have seen the following
judicial decision, in the case of Jourdan, vs. Patton--5 Martin's
Louisiana Reports, 615. A slave of the plaintiff had been deprived of
his _only eye_, and thus rendered _useless_, on which account the
court adjudged that the defendant should pay the plaintiff his full
value. The case went up, by appeal, to the Supreme court. Judge
Mathews, in his decision said, that 'when the defendant had paid the
sum decreed, the slave ought to be placed in his possession,'--adding,
that 'the judgment making full compensation to the owner _operates a
change of property_. He adds, 'The principle of humanity which would
lead us to suppose, that the mistress whom he had long served, would
treat her miserable blind slave with more kindness than the defendant
to whom the judgment ought to transfer him, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION!' The full compensation of the mistress for the loss of
the services of the slave, is worthy of all 'consideration,' even to
the uttermost farthing; 'public opinion' is omnipotent for _her_
protection; but when the food, clothing, shelter, fire and lodging,
medicine and nursing, comfort and entire condition and treatment of
her poor blind slave throughout his dreary pilgrimage, is the
question--ah! that, says the mouthpiece of the law, and the
representative of 'public opinion,' 'CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION.' Protection of slaves by 'public opinion' among
slaveholders!!
The foregoing illustrations of southern 'public opinion,' from the
laws made by it and embodying it, are sufficient to show, that, so far
from being an efficient protection to the slaves, it is their
deadliest foe, persecutor and tormentor.
But here we shall probably be met by the legal lore of some 'Justice
Shallow,' instructing us that the life of the slave is fully protected
by law, however unprotected he may be in other respects. This
assertion we meet with a point blank denial. The law does not, in
reality, protect the life of the slave. But even if the letter of the
law would fully protect the life of the slave, 'public opinion' in the
slave states would make it a dead letter. The letter of the law would
have been all-sufficient for the protection of the lives of the
miserable gamblers in Vicksburg, and other places in Mississippi, from
the rage of those whose money they had won; but 'gentlemen of property
and standing 'laughed the law to scorn, rushed to the gamblers' house,
put ropes round their necks, dragged them through the streets, hanged
them in the public square, and thus saved the sum they had not yet
paid. Thousands witnessed this wholesale murder, yet of the scores of
legal officers present, not a soul raised a finger to prevent it, the
whole city consented to it, and thus aided and abetted it. How many
hundreds of them helped to commit the murders, _with their own hands_,
does not appear, but not one of them has been indicted for it, and no
one made the least effort to bring them to trial. Thus, up to the
present hour, the blood of those murdered men rests on that whole
city, and it will continue to be a CITY OF MURDERERS, so long as its
citizens, agree together to shield those felons from punishment; and
they do thus agree together so long as they encourage each other in
refusing to bring them to justice. Now, the _laws_ of Mississippi were
not in fault that those men were murdered; nor are they now in fault,
that their murderers are not punished; the laws demand it, but the
people of Mississippi, the legal officers, the grand juries and
legislature of the state, with one consent agree, that the law _shall
be a dead letter_, and thus the whole state assumes the guilt of those
murders, and in bravado, flourishes her reeking hands in the face of
the world.[34]
[Footnote 34: We have just learned from Mississippi papers, that the
citizens of Vicksburg are erecting a public monument in honor of Dr.
H.S. Bodley, who was the ring-leader of the Lynchers in their attack
upon the miserable victims. To give the crime the cold encouragement
of impunity alone, or such slight tokens of favor as a home and a
sanctuary, is beneath the chivalry and hospitality of Mississippians;
so they tender it incense, an altar, and a crown of glory. Let the
marble rise till it be seen from afar, a beacon marking the spot where
law lies lifeless by the hand of felons; and murderers, with chaplets
on their heads, dance and shout upon its grave, while 'all the people
say, amen.']
The letter of the law on the statute book is one thing, the practice
of the community under that law often a totally different thing. Each
of the slave states has laws providing that the life of no _white_ man
shall be taken without his having first been indicted by a grand jury,
allowed an impartial trial by a petit jury, with the right of counsel,
cross-examination of witnesses, &c.; but who does not know that if
ARTHUR TAPPAN were pointed out in the streets of New Orleans, Mobile,
Savannah, Charleston, Natchez, or St. Louis, he would be torn in
pieces by the citizens with one accord, and that if any one should
attempt to bring his murderers to punishment, he would be torn in
pieces also. The editors of southern newspapers openly vaunt, that
every abolitionist who sets foot in their soil, shall, if he be
discovered, be hung at once, without judge or jury. What mockery to
quote the _letter of the law_ in those states, to show that
abolitionists would have secured to them the legal protection of an
impartial trial!
Before the objector can make out his case, that the life of the slave
is protected by the law, he must not only show that the _words of the
law_ grant him such protection, but that such a state of public
sentiment exists as will carry out the provisions of the law in their
true spirit. Any thing short of this will be set down as mere prating
by every man of common sense. It has been already abundantly shown in
the preceding pages, that the public sentiment of the slaveholding
states toward the slaves is diabolical. Now, if there were laws in
those states, the _words_ of which granted to the life of the slave
the same protection granted to that of the master, what would they
avail? ACTS constitute protection; and is that public sentiment which
makes the slave 'property,' and perpetrates hourly robbery and
batteries upon him, so penetrated with a sense of the sacredness of
his right to life, that it will protect it at all hazards, and drag to
the gallows his OWNER, if he take the life of his own _property_? If
it be asked, why the penalty for killing a slave is not a mere _fine_
then, if his life is not really regarded as sacred by public
sentiment--we answer, that formerly in most, if not in all the slave
states, the murder of a slave _was_ punished by a mere fine. This was
the case in South Carolina till a few years since. Yes, as late as
1821, in the state of South Carolina, which boasts of its chivalry and
honor, at least as loudly as any state in the Union, a slaveholder
might butcher his slave in the most deliberate manner--with the most
barbarous and protracted torments, and yet not be subjected to a
single hour's imprisonment--pay his fine, stride out of the court and
kill another--pay his fine again and butcher another, and so long as
he paid to the state, cash down, its own assessment of damages,
without putting it to the trouble of prosecuting for it, he might
strut 'a gentleman.'--See 2 _Brevard's Digest_, 241.
The reason assigned by the legislature for enacting a law which
punished the wilful murder of a human being by a _fine_, was that
'CRUELTY _is_ HIGHLY UNBECOMING,' and 'ODIOUS.' It was doubtless the
same reason that induced the legislature in 1821, to make a show of
giving _more_ protection to the life of the slave. Their fathers, when
they gave _some_ protection, did it because the time had come when,
not to do it would make them 'ODIOUS,' So the legislature of 1821 made
a show of giving still greater protection, because, not to do it would
make them '_odious_.' Fitly did they wear the mantles of their
ascending fathers! In giving to the life of a slave the miserable
protection of a fine, their fathers did not even pretend to do it out
of any regard to the sacredness of his life as a human being, but
merely because cruelty is 'unbecoming' and 'odious.' The legislature
of 1821 _nominally_ increased this protection; not that they cared
more for the slave's rights, or for the inviolabity of his life as a
human being, but the civilized world had advanced since the date of
the first law. The slave-trade which was then honorable merchandise,
and plied by lords, governors, judges, and doctors of divinity,
raising them to immense wealth, had grown 'unbecoming,' and only
raised its votaries by a rope to the yard arm; besides this, the
barbarity of the slave codes throughout the world was fast becoming
'odious' to civilized nations, and slaveholders found that the only
conditions on which they could prevent themselves from being thrust
out of the pale of civilization, was to meliorate the iron rigor of
their slave code, and thus _seem_ to secure to their slaves some
protection. Further, the northern states had passed laws for the
abolition of slavery--all the South American states were acting in the
matter; and Colombia and Chili passed acts of abolition that very
year. In addition to all this the Missouri question had been for two
years previous under discussion in Congress, in State legislatures,
and in every village and stage coach; and this law of South Carolina
had been held up to execration by northern members of Congress, and in
newspapers throughout the free states--in a word, the legislature of
South Carolina found that they were becoming 'odious;' and while in
their sense of justice and humanity they did not surpass their
fathers, they winced with equal sensitiveness under the sting of the
world's scorn, and with equal promptitude sued for a truce by
modifying the law.
The legislature of South Carolina modified another law at the same
session. Previously, the killing of a slave 'on a sudden heat or
passion, or by undue correction,' was punished by a fine of three
hundred and fifty pounds. In 1821 an act was passed diminishing the
fine to five hundred dollars, but authorizing an imprisonment 'not
exceeding six months.' Just before the American Revolution, the
Legislature of North Carolina passed a law making _imprisonment_ the
penalty for the wilful and malicious murder of a slave. About twenty
years after the revolution, the state found itself becoming 'odious,'
as the spirit of abolition was pervading the nations. The legislature,
perceiving that Christendom would before long rank them with
barbarians if they so cheapened human life, repealed the law, candidly
assigning in the preamble of the new one the reason for repealing the
old--that it was 'DISGRACEFUL' and 'DEGRADING! As this preamble
expressly recognizes the slave as 'a human creature,' and as it is
couched in a phraseology which indicates some sense of justice, we
would gladly give the legislature credit for sincerity, and believe
them really touched with humane movings towards the slave, were it not
for a proviso in the law clearly revealing that the show of humanity
and regard for their rights, indicated by the words, is nothing more
than a hollow pretence--hypocritical flourish to produce an impression
favorable to their justice and magnanimity. After declaring that he
who is 'guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, shall
suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a freeman;' the act
concludes thus: 'Provided, always, this act shall not extend to the
person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of Assembly of
this state; or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful
overseer, or master, or to any slave dying under _moderate
correction_.' Reader, look at this proviso. 1. It gives free license
to all persons to kill _outlawed slaves_. Well, what is an outlawed
slave? A slave who runs away, lurks in swamps, &c., and kills a _hog_
or any other domestic animal to keep himself from starving, is subject
to a proclamation of _outlawry_; (Haywood's Manual, 521,) and then
whoever finds him may shoot him, tear him in pieces with dogs, burn
him to death over a slow fire, or kill him by any other tortures. 2.
The proviso grants full license to a master to kill his slave, if the
slave _resist_ him. The North Carolina Bench has decided that this law
contemplates not only actual resistance to punishment, &c., but also
_offering_ to resist. (Stroud's Sketch, 37.) If, for example, a slave
undergoing the process of branding should resist by pushing aside the
burning stamp; or if wrought up to frenzy by the torture of the lash,
he should catch and hold it fast; or if he break loose from his master
and run, refusing to stop at his command; or if he _refuse_ to be
flogged; or struggle to keep his clothes on while his master is trying
to strip him; if, in these, or any one of a hundred other ways he
_resist_, or offer, or _threaten_ to resist the infliction; or, if the
master attempt the violation of the slave's wife, and the husband
resist his attempts without the least effort to injure him, but merely
to shield his wife from his assaults, this law does not merely permit,
but it _authorizes_ the master to murder the slave on the spot.
The brutality of these two provisos brands its authors as barbarians.
But the third cause of exemption could not be outdone by the
legislation of fiends. 'DYING under MODERATE _correction_!' MODERATE
_correction_ and DEATH--cause and effect! 'Provided ALWAYS,' says the
law, 'this act shall not extend to any slave dying under _moderate
correction_!' Here is a formal proclamation of impunity to murder--an
express pledge of _acquittal_ to all slaveholders who wish to murder
their slaves, a legal absolution--an indulgence granted before the
commission of the crime! Look at the phraseology. Nothing is said of
maimings, dismemberments, skull fractures, of severe bruisings, or
lacerations, or even of floggings; but a word is used the
common-parlance import of which is, _slight chastisement_; it is not
even _whipping_, but '_correction_' And as if hypocrisy and malignity
were on the rack to outwit each other, even that weak word must be
still farther diluted; so '_moderate_' is added: and, to crown the
climax, compounded of absurdity, hypocrisy, and cold-blooded murder,
the _legal definition_ of 'moderate correction' is covertly given;
which is, _any punishment_ that KILLS the victim. All inflictions are
either _moderate_ or _immoderate_; and the design of this law was
manifestly to shield the murderer from conviction, _by carrying on its
face the rule for its own interpretation_; thus advertising,
beforehand, courts and juries, that the fact of any infliction
_producing death_, was no evidence that it was _immoderate_, and that
beating a man to death came within the legal meaning of 'moderate
correction!' The _design_ of the legislature of North Carolina in
framing this law is manifest; it was to produce the impression upon
the world, that they had so high a sense of justice as voluntarily to
grant adequate protection to the lives of their slaves. This is
ostentatiously set forth in the preamble, and in the body of the law.
That this was the most despicable hypocrisy, and that they had
predetermined to grant no such protection, notwithstanding the pains
taken to get the _credit_ of it, is fully revealed by the _proviso_,
which was framed in such a way as to nullify the law, for the express
accommodation of slaveholding gentlemen murdering their slaves. All
such find in this proviso a convenient accomplice before the fact, and
a packed jury, with a ready-made verdict of 'not guilty,' both
gratuitously furnished by the government! The preceding law and
proviso are to be found in Haywood's Manual, 530; also in Laws of
Tennessee, Act of October 23, 1791; and in Stroud's Sketch, 37.
Enough has been said already to show, that though the laws of the
slave states profess to grant adequate protection to the life of the
slave, such professions are mere empty pretence, no such protection
being in reality afforded by them. But there is still another fact,
showing that all laws which profess to protect the slaves from injury
by the whites are a mockery. It is this--that the testimony, neither
of a slave nor of a free colored person, is _legal_ testimony against
a white. To this rule there is _no exception_ in any of the slave
states: and this, were there no other evidence, would be sufficient to
stamp, as hypocritical, all the provisions of the codes which
_profess_ to protect the slaves. Professing to grant _protection_,
while, at the same time, it strips them of the only _means_ by which
they can make that protection available! Injuries must be legally
_proved_ before they can be legally _redressed_: to deprive men of the
power of _proving_ their injuries, is itself the greatest of all
injuries; for it not only exposes to all, but invites them, by a
virtual guarantee of impunity, and is thus the _author_ of all
injuries. It matters not what other laws exist, professing to throw
safeguards round the slave--_this_ makes them blank paper. How can a
slave prove outrages perpetrated upon him by his master or overseer,
when his own testimony and that of all his fellow-slaves, his kindred,
associates, and acquaintances, is ruled out of court? and when he is
entirely in the _power_ of those who injure him, and when the only
care necessary, on their part, is, to see that no _white_ witness is
looking on. Ordinarily, but _one_ white man, the overseer, is with the
slaves while they are at labor; indeed, on most plantations, to commit
an outrage in the _presence_ of a white witness would be more
difficult than in their absence. He who wished to commit an illegal
act upon a slave, instead of being obliged to _take pains_ and watch
for an opportunity to do it unobserved by a white, would find it
difficult to do it in the presence of a white if he wished to do so.
The supreme court of Louisiana, in their decision, in the case of
Crawford vs. Cherry,(15, _Martin's La. Rep._ 112; also "_Law of
Slavery,_" 249,) where the defendant was sued for the value of a slave
whom he had shot and killed, say, "The act charged here, is one
_rarely_ committed in the presence of _witnesses_," (whites). So in
the case of the State vs. Mann, (_Devereux, N.C. Rep._ 263; and _"Law
of Slavery," _247;) in which the defendant was charged with shooting a
slave girl 'belonging' to the plaintiff; the Supreme Court of North
Carolina, in their decision, speaking of the provocations of the
master by the slave, and 'the consequent wrath of the master'
prompting him to _bloody vengeance_, add, _'a vengeance generally
practised with impunity, by reason of its privacy.'_
Laws excluding the testimony of slaves and free colored persons, where
a white is concerned, do not exist in all the slave states. One or two
of them have no legal enactment on the subject; but, in those,
_'public opinion'_ acts with the force of law, and the courts
_invariably reject it_. This brings us back to the potency of that
oft-quoted 'public opinion,' so ready, according to our objector, to
do battle for the _protection_ of the slave!
Another proof that 'public opinion,' in the slave states, plunders,
tortures, and murders the slaves, instead of _protecting_ them, is
found in the fact, that the laws of slave states inflict _capital_
punishment on slaves for a variety of crimes, for which, if their
masters commit them, the legal penalty is merely _imprisonment_. Judge
Stroud in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, says, that by the laws of
Virginia, there are 'seventy-one crimes for which slaves are capitally
punished though in none of these are whites punished in manner more
severe than by imprisonment in the penitentiary.' (P. 107, where the
reader will find all the crimes enumerated.) It should be added,
however, that though the penalty for each of these seventy-one crimes
is 'death,' yet a majority of them are, in the words of the law,
'death within clergy;' and in Virginia, _clergyable_ offences, though
_technically_ capital, are not so in fact. In Mississippi, slaves are
punished capitally for more than _thirty_ crimes, for which whites are
punished only by fine or imprisonment, or both. Eight of these are not
_recognized as crimes_, either by common law or by statute, when
committed by whites. In South Carolina slaves are punished capitally
for _nine_ more crimes than the whites--in Georgia, for _six_--and in
Kentucky, for _seven_ more than whites, &c. We surely need not detain
the reader by comments on this monstrous inequality with which the
penal codes of slave states treat slaves and their masters. When we
consider that guilt is in proportion to intelligence, and that these
masters have by law doomed their slaves to ignorance, and then, as
they darkle and grope along their blind way, inflict penalties upon
them for a variety of acts regarded as praise worthy in whites;
killing them for crimes, when whites are only fined or imprisoned--to
call such a 'public opinion' inhuman, savage, murderous, diabolical,
would be to use tame words, if the English vocabulary could supply
others of more horrible import.
But slaveholding brutality does not stop here. While punishing the
slaves for crimes with vastly greater severity than it does their
masters for the same crimes, and making a variety of acts _crimes_ in
law, which are right, and often _duties_, it persists in refusing to
make known to the slaves that complicated and barbarous penal code
which loads them with such fearful liabilities. The slave is left to
get a knowledge of these laws as he can, and cases must be of constant
occurrence at the south, in which slaves get their first knowledge of
the existence of a law by suffering its penalty. Indeed, this is
probably the way in which they commonly learn what the laws are; for
how else can the slave get a knowledge of the laws? He cannot
_read_--he cannot _learn_ to read; if he try to master the alphabet,
so that he may spell out the words of the law, and thus avoid its
penalties, the law shakes its terrors at him; while, at the same time,
those who made the laws refuse to make them known to those for whom
they are designed. The memory of Caligula will blacken with execration
while time lasts, because be hung up his laws so high that people
could not read them, and then punished them because they did not keep
them. Our slaveholders aspire to blacker infamy. Caligula was content
with hanging up his laws where his subjects could _see_ them; and if
they could not read them, they knew where they were, and might get at
them, if, in their zeal to learn his will, they had used the same
means to get up to them that those did who hung them there. Even
Caligula, wretch as he was, would have shuddered at cutting their legs
off, to prevent their climbing to them; or, if they had got there, at
boring their eyes out, to prevent their reading them. Our slaveholders
virtually do both; for they prohibit their slaves acquiring that
knowledge of letters which would enable them to read the laws; and if,
by stealth, they get it in spite of them, they prohibit them books and
papers, and flog them if they are caught at them. Further--Caligula
merely hung his laws so high that they could not be _read_--our
slaveholders have hung theirs so high above the slave that they cannot
be _seen_--they are utterly out of sight, and he finds out that they
are there only by the falling of the penalties on his head.[35] Thus
the "public opinion" of slave states protects the defenceless slave by
arming a host of legal penalties and setting them in ambush at every
thicket along his path, to spring upon him unawares.
[Footnote 35: The following extract from the Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette
is all illustration. "CRIMINALS CONDEMNED.--On Monday last the Court
of the borough of Norfolk, Va. sat on the trial of four negro boys
arraigned for burglary. The first indictment charged them with
breaking into the hardware store of Mr. E.P. Tabb, upon which two of
them were found guilty by the Court, and condemned to suffer the
penalty of the law, which, in the case of a slave, is death. The
second Friday in April is appointed for the execution of their awful
sentence. _Their ages do not exceed sixteen_. The first, a fine active
boy, belongs to a widow lady in Alexandria; the latter, a house
servant, is owned by a gentleman in the borough. The value of one was
fixed at $1000, and the other at $800; which sums are to be
re-imbursed to their respective owners out of the state treasury." In
all probability these poor boys, who are to be hung for stealing,
never dreamed that death was the legal penalty of the crime.
Here is another, from the "New Orleans Bee" of ---- 14, 1837--"The
slave who STRUCK some citizens in Canal street, some weeks since, has
been tried and found guilty, and is sentenced to be HUNG on the 24th."]
Stroud, in his Sketch of the Laws of Slavery, page 100, thus comments
on this monstrous barbarity.
"The hardened convict moves their sympathy, and is to be taught the
laws before he is expected to obey them;[36] yet the guiltless slave
is subjected to an extensive system of cruel enactments, of no part of
which, probably, has he ever heard."
[Footnote 36: "It shall be the duty of the keeper [of the penitentiary]
on the receipt of each prisoner, to _read_ to him or her such parts of
the penal laws of this state as impose penalties for escape, and to
make all the prisoners in the penitentiary acquainted with the same.
It shall also be his duty, on the discharge of such prisoner, to read
to him or her such parts of the laws as impose additional punishments
for the repetition of offences."--_Rule 12th_, for the internal
government of the Penitentiary of Georgia. Sec. 26 of the Penitentiary
Act of 1816.--Prince's Digest, 386.]
Having already drawn so largely on the reader's patience, in
illustrating southern 'public opinion' by the slave laws, instead of
additional illustrations of the same point from another class of those
laws, as was our design, we will group together a few particulars,
which the reader can take in at a glance, showing that the "public
opinion" of slaveholders towards their slaves, which exists at the
south, in the form of law, tramples on all those fundamental
principles of right, justice, and equity, which are recognized as
sacred by all civilized nations, and receive the homage even of
barbarians.
1. One of these principles is, that the _benefits_ of law to the
subject should overbalance its burdens--its protection more than
compensate for its restraints and exactions--and its blessings
altogether outweigh its inconveniences and evils--the former being
numerous, positive, and permanent, the latter few, negative, and
incidental. Totally the reverse of all this is true in the case of the
slave. Law is to him all exaction and no protection: instead of
lightening his _natural_ burdens, it crushes him under a multitude of
artificial ones; instead of a friend to succor him, it is his
deadliest foe, transfixing him at every step from the cradle to the
grave. Law has been beautifully defined to be "benevolence acting by
rule;" to the American slave it is malevolence torturing by system. It
is an old truth, that _responsibility_ increases with _capacity_; but
those same laws which make the slave a "_chattel_," require of him
_more_ than of _men_. The same law which makes him a _thing_ incapable
of obligation, loads him with obligations superhuman--while sinking
him below the level of a brute in dispensing its _benefits_, he lays
upon him burdens which would break down an angel.
2. _Innocence is entitled to the protection of law._ Slaveholders make
innocence free plunder; this is their daily employment; their laws
assail it, make it their victim, inflict upon it all, and, in some
respects, more than all the penalties of the greatest guilt. To other
innocent persons, law is a blessing, to the slave it is a curse, only
a curse and that continually.
3. _Deprivation of liberty is one of the highest punishments of
crime_; and in proportion to its justice when inflicted on the guilty,
is its injustice when inflicted on the innocent; this terrible penalty
is inflicted on two million seven hundred thousand, innocent persons
in the Southern states.
4. _Self-preservation and self-defence_, are universally regarded as
the most sacred of human rights, yet the laws of slave states punish
the slave with _death_ for exercising these rights in that way, which
in others is pronounced worthy of the highest praise.
5. _The safeguards of law are most needed where natural safe-guards
are weakest._ Every principle of justice and equity requires, that,
those who are totally unprotected by birth, station, wealth, friends,
influence, and popular favor, and especially those who are the
innocent objects of public contempt and prejudice, should be more
vigilantly protected by law, than those who are so fortified by
defence, that they have far less need of _legal_ protection; yet the
poor slave who is fortified by _none_ of these _personal_ bulwarks, is
denied the protection of law, while the master, surrounded by them
all, is panoplied in the mail of legal protection, even to the hair of
his head; yea, his very shoe-tie and coat-button are legal protegees.
6. The grand object of law is to _protect men's natural rights_, but
instead of protecting the natural rights of the slaves, it gives
slaveholders license to wrest them from the weak by violence, protects
them in holding their plunder, and _kills_ the rightful owner if he
attempt to recover it.
This is the _protection_ thrown around the rights of American slaves
by the 'public opinion,' of slaveholders; these the restraints that
hold back their masters, overseers, and drivers, from inflicting
injuries upon them!
In a Republican government, _law_ is the pulse of its _heart_--as the
heart beats the pulse beats, except that it often beats _weaker_ than
the heart, never stronger--or to drop the figure, laws are never
_worse_ than those who make them, very often better. If human history
proves anything, cruelty of practice will always go beyond cruelty of
law.
Law-making is a formal, deliberate act, performed by persons of mature
age, embodying the intelligence, wisdom, justice and humanity, of the
community; performed, too, at leisure, after full opportunity had for
a comprehensive survey of all the relations to be affected, after
careful investigation and protracted discussion. Consequently laws
must, in the main, be a true index of the permanent feelings, the
settled _frame of mind_, cherished by the community upon those
subjects, and towards those persons and classes whose condition the
laws are designed to establish. If the laws are in a high degree cruel
and inhuman, towards any class of persons, it proves that the feelings
habitually exercised towards that class of persons, by those who make
and perpetuate those laws, are at least _equally_ cruel and inhuman.
We say _at least equally_ so; for if the _habitual_ state of feeling
towards that class be unmerciful, it must be unspeakably cruel,
relentless and malignant when _provoked_; if its _ordinary_ action is
inhuman, its contortions and spasms must be tragedies; if the waves
run high when there has been no wind, where will they not break when
the tempest heaves them!
Further, when cruelty is the _spirit_ of the law towards a proscribed
class, when it _legalizes great outrages_ upon them, it connives at,
and abets _greater_ outrages, and is virtually an accomplice of all
who perpetrate them. Hence, in such cases, though the _degree_ of the
outrage is illegal, the perpetrator will rarely be convicted, and,
even if convicted, will be almost sure to escape punishment. This is
not _theory_ but _history_. Every judge and lawyer in the slave states
_knows_, that the legal conviction and _punishment_ of masters and
mistresses, for illegal outrages upon their slaves, is an event which
has rarely, if ever, occurred in the slave states; they know, also,
that although _hundreds_ of slaves have been _murdered_ by their
masters and mistresses in the slave states, within the last
twenty-five years, and though the fact of their having committed those
murders has been established beyond a _doubt_ in the minds of the
surrounding community, yet that the murderers have not, in a single
instance, suffered the penalty of the law.
Finally, since slaveholders have deliberately legalized the
perpetration of the most cold-blooded atrocities upon their slaves,
and do pertinaciously refuse to make these atrocities _illegal_, and
to punish those who perpetrate them, they stand convicted before the
world, upon their own testimony, of the most barbarous, brutal, and
habitual inhumanity. If this be slander and falsehood, their own lips
have uttered it, their own fingers have written it, their own acts
have proclaimed it; and however it may be with their _morality_, they
have too much human nature to perjure themselves for the sake of
publishing their own infamy.
Having dwelt at such length on the legal code of the slave states,
that unerring index of the public opinion of slaveholders towards
their slaves; and having shown that it does not protect the slaves
from cruelty, and that even in the few instances in which the letter
of the law, if _executed_, would afford some protection, it is
virtually nullified by the connivance of courts and juries, or by
popular clamor; we might safely rest the case here, assured that every
honest reader would spurn the absurd falsehood, that the 'public
opinion' of the slave states protects the slaves and restrains the
master. But, as the assertion is made so often by slaveholders, and
with so much confidence, notwithstanding its absurdity is fully
revealed by their own legal code, we propose to show its falsehood by
applying other tests.
We lay it down as a truth that can be made no plainer by reasoning,
that the same 'public opinion,' which restrains men from _committing_
outrages, will restrain them from _publishing_ such outrages, if they
do commit them;--in other words, if a man is restrained from certain
acts through fear of losing his character, should they become known,
he will not voluntarily destroy his character by _making them known_,
should he be guilty of them. Let us look at this. It is assumed by
slaveholders, that 'public opinion' at the south so frowns on cruelty
to the slaves, that _fear of disgrace_ would restrain from the
infliction of it, were there no other consideration.
Now, that this is sheer fiction is shown by the fact, that the
newspapers in the slaveholding states, teem with advertisements for
runaway slaves, in which the masters and _mistresses_ describe their
men and women, as having been 'branded with a hot iron,' on their
'cheeks,' 'jaws,' 'breasts,' 'arms,' 'legs,' and 'thighs;' also as
'scarred,' 'very much scarred,' 'cut up,' 'marked,' &c. 'with the
whip,' also with 'iron collars on,' 'chains,' 'bars of iron,'
'fetters,' 'bells,' 'horns,' 'shackles,' &c. They, also, describe them
as having been wounded by 'buck-shot,' 'rifle-balls,' &c. fired at
them by their 'owners,' and others when in pursuit; also, as having
'notches,' cut in their ears, the tops or bottoms of their ears 'cut
off,' or 'slit,' or 'one ear cut off' or 'both ears cut off' &c. &c.
The masters and mistresses who thus advertise their runaway slaves,
coolly sign their names to their advertisements, giving the street and
number of their residences, if in cities, their post office address,
&c. if in the country; thus making public proclamation as widely as
possible that _they_ 'brand,' 'scar,' 'gash,' 'cut up,' &c. the flesh
of their slaves; load them with irons, cut off their ears, &c.; they
speak of these things with the utmost _sang froid_, not seeming to
think it possible, that any one will esteem them at all the less
because of these outrages upon their slaves; further, these
advertisements swarm in many of the largest and most widely circulated
political and commercial papers that are published in the slave
states. The editors of those papers constitute the main body of the
literati of the slave states; they move in the highest circle of
society, are among the 'popular' men in the community, and _as a
class_, are more influential than any other; yet these editors publish
these advertisements with iron indifference. So far from proclaiming
to such felons, homicides, and murderers, that they will not be their
blood-hounds, to hunt down the innocent and mutilated victims who have
escaped from their torture, they freely furnish them with every
facility, become their accomplices and share their spoils; and instead
of outraging 'public opinion,' by doing it, they are the men after its
own heart, its organs, its representatives, its _self_.
To show that the 'public opinion' of the slave states, towards the
slaves, is absolutely _diabolical_, we will insert a few, out of a
multitude, of similar advertisements from a variety of southern papers
now before us.
The North Carolina Standard, of July 18, 1838, contains the
following:--
"TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. Ranaway from the subscriber, a negro woman and
two children; the woman is tall and black, and _a few days before she
went off_, I BURNT HER WITH A HOT IRON ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER FACE; I
TRIED TO MAKE THE LETTER M, _and she kept a cloth over her head and
face, and a fly bonnet on her head so as to cover the burn;_ her
children are both boys, the oldest is in his seventh year; he is a
_mulatto_ and has blue eyes; the youngest is black and is in his fifth
year. The woman's name is Betty, commonly called Bet."