INDIRECT INSTRUCTION.--NO LEGAL MARRIAGE OF SLAVES.
"Marriage unites all which ennobles and beautifies life."--_De
Wette._
"Negro marriages are neither recognized nor protected by
law."--_Rev. C. C. Jones._
Besides the direct instruction thus imparted to slaves, there is an
indirect instruction much more powerful and effective in securing their
degradation.
"Marriage," says De Wette, "is genuine only when single and permanent.
It is then also the first and most important institution of human
existence; the foundation of all civilization and culture; the root of
church and state. It is the most intimate covenant of heart formed among
mankind; and thousands are first made aware by it that they have within
them a nobler impulse and a nobler want than to labor, to acquire, and
to enjoy. It is the union of manly strength with feminine gentleness;
the tempering of masculine rudeness by female delicacy; and, for
innumerable persons, the only relation in which they feel the true
sentiments of humanity. It gives scope for every human virtue, since
each of these is developed from the love and confidence which here
predominate. It unites all which ennobles and beautifies
life,--sympathy, kindness of will and deed, gratitude, devotion, and
every delicate, intimate feeling. As the only asylum for true education,
it is the first and last sanctuary of human culture. As husband and
wife, through each other, become conscious of complete humanity, of
every humane feeling and every humane virtue; so children, at their
first awakening in the fond covenant of love between parents, both of
whom are tenderly concerned for the same object, find an image of
complete humanity, leagued in free love. The spirit of love, which
prevails between them, acts with creative power upon the young mind, and
awakens every germ of goodness within it. This invisible, uncalculated,
and incalculable influence of parental life acts more upon the child
than all the efforts of education by means of instruction, precept, and
exhortation."
How true and yet how faint a picture of the vast influence for good of
the institution of marriage! But if marriage thus unites all which it
ennobles 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 institution ("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,"
"constitutionally 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
institution: 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 God 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, God hath joined'? A.
'What, therefore, God 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 God 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 God 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 God hath joined may be put
asunder, whenever the owner pleases; as if, wishing 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, wishing 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 God" 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 advertisements, 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 Sussex 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 Saturday, 16th inst. a negro man, named Dick, 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 flesh! The sacred
relation has been for ever sundered by God'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 God'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 "membership 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 Association harmonize the
worship of God and mammon, and reconcile obedience to the commands of
the master with obedience to God! This Association, 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 God, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages in such
cases would be to expose the parties, not only to stronger hardships
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 Shiloh Baptist Association 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 circumstances in which servants in this
country are placed, the committee are unanimous in the opinion, that
it is better to permit servants thus circumstanced 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 Dick 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:
"$200 REWARD--Ran away from the subscriber, on the 23d of June last,
a bright mulatto woman, named Julia, about 25 years of age. She is
of common size, _nearly white_, and very likely. She is a good
seamstress, and can read a little. _She may attempt to pass for
white_,--dresses fine. She took with her Anna, her child, 8 or 9
years old, and considerably darker than her mother.... She once
belonged to a Mr. Helm, of Columbia, Tennessee.
"I will give a reward of $50 for said negro and child, if delivered
to me or confined in any jail in this State, so I can get them;
$100, if caught in any other Slave State, and confined in a jail so
that I can get them; and $200, if caught in any Free State, and put
in any good jail in Kentucky or Tennessee, so I can get them.
"Nashville, July 9, 1849. A. W. JOHNSON."
The following three advertisements are taken from Alabama papers:
"RAN AWAY FROM THE SUBSCRIBER, working on the plantation of Col. H.
Tinker, a bright mulatto boy, named Alfred. Alfred is about 18 years
old, pretty well grown, _has blue eyes, light flaxen hair, skin
disposed to freckle. He will try to pass as free-born._
"Green County, Ala. S. G. STEWART."
"$100 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, a bright mulatto
man-slave, named Sam. _Light sandy hair, blue eyes, ruddy
complexion,--is so white as very easily to pass for a free white
man._
EDWIN PECK.
"Mobile, April 22, 1837."
"RAN AWAY, on the 15th of May, from me, a negro woman, named Fanny.
Said woman is 20 years old; is rather tall; can read and write, and
so forge passes for herself. Carried away with her a pair of
ear-rings,--a Bible with a red cover; is very pious. She prays a
great deal, and was, as supposed, contented and happy. _She is as
white as most white women, with straight light hair, and blue eyes,
and can pass herself for a white woman._ I will give $500 for her
apprehension and delivery to me. She is very intelligent.
JOHN BALCH.
"Tuscaloosa, May 29, 1845."
From the "Newbern (N.C.) Spectator:"
"$50 REWARD will be given for the apprehension and delivery to me of
the following slaves,--Samuel and Judy, his wife, with their four
children, belonging to the estate of Sacker Dubberly, deceased.
"I will give $10 for the apprehension of _William Dubberly_, a slave
belonging to the estate. William is about 19 years old, _quite
white, and would not readily be taken for a slave_.
"March 13, 1837. JOHN J. LANE."
The next two advertisements we cut from the "New Orleans Picayune" of
Sept. 2, 1846:
"$25 REWARD.--Ran away from the plantation of Madame Fergus
Duplantier, on or about the 27th of June, 1846, a bright mulatto,
named Ned, very stout built, about 5 feet 11 inches high, _speaks
English and French_, about 35 years old, waddles in his walk. _He
may try to pass himself for a white man, as he is of a very clear
color, and has sandy hair._ The above reward will be paid to whoever
will bring him to Madame Duplantier's plantation, Manchac, or lodge
him in some jail where he can be conveniently obtained."
"$200 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, last November, _a white
negro_ man, about 35 years old, height about 5 feet 8 or 10 inches,
_blue eyes, has a yellow woolly head, very fair skin_,
(particularly under his clothes).... Said negro man was raised in
Columbia, S.C. and is well known by the name of Dick Frazier.... He
was lately known to be working on the railroad in Alabama, near
Moore's Turn Out, _and passed as a white man_, by the name of Jesse
Teams. I will give the above reward for his delivery in any jail, so
that I can get him; and I will give $500 for sufficient proof to
convict, in open court, any man who carried him away.
"Barnwell Court House, S.C. J. D. ALLEN.
"P.S. Said man has a good-shaped foot and leg, and his foot is very
small and hollow."
In the "New Orleans Bee" of June 22, 1831, P. Bahi advertises as a
runaway "_Maria, with a clear, white complexion_." Ellen Craft is as
white as our own sisters. Wm. W. Brown ("Narrative," p. 34), describing
a gang of slaves who were under his charge, and destined to supply the
New Orleans market, thus speaks of one who attracted the attention of
the passengers and the crew:--
"It was a _beautiful girl_, apparently about twenty yeas of age,
_perfectly white, with straight, light hair, and blue eyes_. But it
was not the whiteness of her skin that created such a sensation
among those who gazed upon her: it was her almost unparalleled
beauty. She had been on the boat but a short time before the
attention of all the passengers, including the ladies, had been
called to her; and the common topic of conversation was about the
beautiful slave-girl."
A friend, a resident for some time in New Orleans, describes to us a
very beautiful slave he saw there, who had light curling hair, blue
eyes, and almost a blonde complexion. After having been kept as a
mistress by her owner, he finally sold her to pay his debts! No isolated
case is exhibited by Wm. W. Brown when he relates the history of poor
Cynthia!
Is any sickly sentimentalist shocked at these recitals? Be of stout
heart! Do not Christian bishops, and hundreds of other reverend
fathers,--the messengers of God's everlasting truth to our
souls,--assure us that _slavery_, "AS IT EXISTS," _is right_; and that,
consequently, the fundamental maxim of slavery, "the child follows the
condition of the mother," is right also! Why, then, should not the
children of slave-women by white fathers be rightfully slaves? Of what
consequence, then, is the pollution of the soul of the mother, compared
with the fact of her increased value as a commodity? How utterly
insignificant is the fact that a father holds his own children in
slavery, compared with the advantages notoriously derived from such an
improvement in the slave-stock? In sober, literal truth, the brother
owns the body of his sister, and the sister that of her brother,--so
sacred is the marriage-state of slaves! If the father wishes to repair
the wrong he has done, the law forbids his teaching his own child to
read or write! If he is poor, too poor to pay his debts, a creditor may
seize his child in its very cradle, and sell it at auction to pay the
debt! It ought not to be otherwise! Is it not agreeable to the order of
Divine Providence, that a child should be sold to pay his father's
debts? How fitting it is for Mr. Jones and Bishop Freeman to teach such
a vendible commodity to say, "Thou shalt honor thy father and thy
mother"!
Does any reader still doubt whether an owner thus has uncontrolled
authority over the body of his female slave? Let him read the following
extract from an opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of North
Carolina,--the Old North State, whence Bishop Ives has long since ceased
to weep over the "imaginary sufferings" of the slaves! To avoid a
chastisement, a female slave ran off, and, on her refusal to stop when
called, was shot at and wounded. Judge Ruffin, in delivering the opinion
of the court (State _vs._ Mann, 2 Dev. Rep. 263), says:--
"The inquiry here is, whether a cruel and unreasonable battery on a
slave by the hirer is indictable?... In criminal proceedings, and,
indeed, in reference to all other persons but the general owner, the
hirer and possessor of a slave, in relation to both rights and
duties, is, for the time being, the owner....
"With slavery it is far otherwise. The end is the profit of the
master, his security, and the public peace. The subject is one
doomed in his own person, and in his posterity, to live without
knowledge, and without capacity to make any thing his own, and to
toil that others may reap the fruits.
"What moral considerations shall be addressed to such a being to
convince him what it is impossible but that the most stupid must
feel and know can never be true, that he is thus to labor upon a
principle of natural duty, or for the sake of his own personal
happiness? Such services can only be expected from one who has no
will of his own, who surrenders his will in explicit obedience to
that of another. _Such obedience is the consequence only of
uncontrolled authority over the body._ There is nothing else which
can operate to produce the effect. The power of the master must be
absolute to render the submission of the slave perfect. I most
freely confess my sense of the harshness of this proposition. I feel
it as deeply as any man can. And, as a principle of moral right,
every person in his retirement must repudiate it. But, in the actual
condition of things, it must be so. There is no remedy. This
discipline belongs to slavery."[O]
Judge Ruffin had not enjoyed the benefit of the instruction imparted
some years later by Bishops Ives and Freeman. If he had, he would not
thus have followed the dictate of a "desperately wicked" heart, and have
repudiated the discipline of slavery as morally wrong!
The Rev. Robert J. Breckenridge, of the Presbyterian Church, himself a
slaveholder, was a delegate to the State Emancipation Convention
recently held in Kentucky. In a speech made by him before the
Convention, he is reported to have said ("Louisville Examiner"), that--
"The system of slavery denies to a whole class of human beings the
sacredness of marriage and of home, compelling them to live in a
state of concubinage; for, in the eye of the law, _no colored
slave-man is the husband of any wife in particular, nor any
slave-woman the wife of any husband in particular; no slave-man is
the father of any children in particular, and no slave-child is the
child of any parent in particular_."
Who will venture even to conceive, much less compute, the deep
degradation caused by the denial of marriage to the slaves?