SLAVEHOLDING ALWAYS WRONG.
"No seeming of logic can ever convince the American people, that
thousands of our slaveholding brethren are not excellent, humane,
and even Christian men, fearing God, and keeping his
commandments."--_Rev. Dr. Joel Parker._
It remains for us to consider the special cases in which slaveholding is
thought by many to be right. All slaveholders are not actors in the
cruel system which we have just described. There are in the Southern
States, we are ready to believe, thousands who disregard the laws, who
treat their slaves as humanely as is possible, who cultivate to a
considerable extent their mental and moral faculties, and who would
unite with us in condemning the barbarities we have been considering.
The Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller, of Beaufort, S.C. thus describes the
condition of his slaves ("Domestic Slavery considered as a Scriptural
Institution," &c. p. 222; 1845):
"In a familiar correspondence like this, I may be pardoned for
saying, that, during twelve years, I have devoted the salary given
me, whenever at my disposal, to the spiritual instruction of the
slaves, and am now doing so. With reference to my own servants,
their condition is as good as I can make it. They are placed under a
contract, which no instrument in writing could make more sacred. By
this contract, they, on their part, perform not one half the work
done by free laborers; and I, on my part, am bound to employ a
missionary to teach and catechize them and their children; to
provide them a home and clothes and provisions and fuel, and land to
plant for themselves; to pay all medical bills; to guaranty to them
all the profits of their skill and labor in their own time; to
protect them as a guardian, and to administer to the wants of their
children, and of those that are sick and infirm and aged. Such is
their state; nor have I any idea that they would consent to be
removed."
This picture may be deepened as we please. Dr. Fuller, and every
slaveholder who is like him, may clothe, feed, and house his slaves as
he does himself; he may watch over their mental and moral condition with
as much real solicitude as he does that of a child; he may love them
almost with a father's love; and yet, notwithstanding all alleviations,
it is wrong for him to hold slaves. Slaveholding is always wrong.
It should be constantly borne in mind, that no man can be obliged either
to become or continue a slaveholder. No man can make me a slaveholder or
a landholder without or against my consent. Indeed, no gift to me of
slaves or land is perfect, until I have accepted it. No man need accept
an inheritance of slaves, or be a slaveholder any longer than he pleases
to be. Where the law of his State permits, he may emancipate his slaves.
If manumission is actually or virtually forbidden, he may take his
slaves into a Free State; and, by such act alone, they become freemen.
With full power, therefore, at any moment to dissolve the relation, Dr.
Fuller voluntarily continues to hold slaves. All slaveholding is
unnecessary, and none is involuntary on the part of the owner.
It should also be borne in mind, that a slave, under all circumstances,
whether he be caressed or scourged, loved or hated, overworked or
underworked, instructed or debased, is the property of his master, and,
as such, is subject to all the legal incidents of property. Dr. Fuller's
slaves are as much Dr. Fuller's property as his horse, his watch, the
coat on his back, or the books on the shelves of his library; and, as
property, their happy, elevated condition necessarily depends upon the
accidents of Dr. Fuller's life, health, and wealth. When these fail,
their condition will unquestionably be either very materially affected
for the worse, or altogether changed.
And, first, if his wealth should fail from unforeseen calamities; so
that from affluence, it may be, he should be reduced to real want, and
be unable to pay the just claims of his creditors; the latter may
satisfy their claims by a sale of his slaves. Nothing but payment of the
debts could prevent such a catastrophe. Equally with his horses and
theological library,[U] his slaves would legally constitute a fund out
of which his creditors might satisfy their claims. Husband and wife,
parent and child, the prattling infant and the old man of seventy
winters, might legally be placed upon the auction-block, and sold to the
highest bidder, singly or in lots to suit, as might seem most calculated
to advance the interest of the creditors. Dr. Fuller's prayers and tears
would avail nothing. His kind and humane treatment, continued through so
many years, would then increase the market-value of his slaves; and that
is all. Nothing that he could do would be able to save them from the
auction-block. And what, under such circumstances, would become of their
mental, moral, or even their physical condition? There would not be one
chance in a thousand that all their new masters would be like Dr.
Fuller, or that they would escape the lot of most other slaves,--a state
of hopeless degradation!
Does any one say, that, though the law would favor such a sale by
creditors, public opinion would not tolerate it? We will not stop to
consider how far the law may be regarded as an index of public opinion.
We simply ask, If Christian churches may sell slaves at auction, what
may not private individuals do consistently with public opinion? We have
already given the advertisement for sale by Thomas N. Gadsden, a
brother, we believe, of Bishop Gadsden, of South Carolina ("Slavery as
it is," p. 174), of a prime gang of negroes belonging to the Independent
Church in Christ Church Parish; and we will adduce only one other
similar instance. Few, if any, theological bodies at the South seem to
have devoted more time, attention, and money to elevating the moral
character of the slaves than the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia;
and yet the Board of Directors of its Theological Seminary do not
scruple to invest the funds of the institution in slaves, or to sell
them by auction in order to obtain repayment of a loan. The "Savannah
(Ga.) Republican" of March 3, 1845, contains an advertisement, of which
the following is an extract:--
"WILL BE SOLD, on the first Tuesday in March, in front of the
Court-house, in the city of Darien, Georgia, between the legal hours
of sale, the following negro-slaves, _i.e._ Charles, Peggy,
Antonett, Davy, September, Maria, Jenny, and Isaac, levied on as the
property of Henry T. Hall, _to satisfy a mortgage, fi. fa., issued
out of the M'Intosh Superior Court in favor of the Board of
Directors of the Theological Seminary of the Synod of South Carolina
and Georgia, against said Henry T. Hall_.--Conditions cash.
C. O'NEAL, Deputy-sheriff, M.C."
Suppose Dr. Fuller should become insane, or otherwise unfit to manage
his own affairs. Such cases often occur. Then the control of the slaves
would pass with his other property into other hands. What would insure
their continued mental and moral well-being? The law would not,--public
opinion would not! Every thing would depend on the character of the
legal guardian or trustee; and even this could afford no adequate
protection. The law permits an _owner_ to do many things which it would
not suffer a guardian or a trustee to do. The legal guardian of Dr.
Fuller's estate would hardly be allowed to suffer his slaves to "perform
_not one half_ the work done by free laborers." The guardian's rule of
conduct would be the _law_, and the _common_ mode of treatment in the
community. If he overstepped this line, and any pecuniary loss should be
the consequence, the loss would fall on him personally. How many
guardians or trustees would be willing to run any risk of a criminal
prosecution or a fine or imprisonment, in order to insure the happy
condition of anther's man property? Not one in ten thousand! And yet,
unless his guardian was willing to do this,--unless he was willing to
brave the law, and act contrary to the general customs of society, Dr.
Fuller's slaves would very soon lapse into the same degraded condition
in which the slaves about them commonly live. Nothing would be more
likely than to find Dr. Fuller's guardian advertising in the following
manner:--
"NEGROES TO HIRE.--On Wednesday, the 26th inst. I will hire to the
highest bidder the negroes belonging to Charles and Robert Innes.
GEO. W. WILLIAMS, Guardian."
"NEGRO HIRINGS.--Will be offered for hire, at Capt. Long's Hotel, a
number of slaves, men, women, boys, and girls, belonging to the
orphans of George Ash, deceased. RICHARD W. BARTON, Guardian."
The law forbids teaching slaves to read and write. Dr. Fuller may
disregard the law, and give his slaves careful instruction, supplying
them with plenty of books, and allowing them time to read in. The law
denies marriage to the slaves, and pays no heed to their family ties.
Dr. Fuller may consecrate with the utmost care the marriage of his
slaves, and sacredly protect their family relations. The law declares
slaves to be, under all circumstances, saleable articles. Dr. Fuller may
think that he treats them as men, and shudder at the thought of selling
them. Thus may he do in his lifetime; but it is appointed unto all men
to die; and what, in the event of his death, will become of his slaves?
He may possibly leave a will, bequeathing them, upon the condition that
his kind and humane treatment shall be continued, that they shall be
taught to read and write, that their marriages and family relations
shall be sacredly respected, and that they shall never be subject to be
sold; that is, on the condition that his legatees shall break the law,
as he has done. The only result will be, that the law will declare all
such conditions to be utterly void; and the legatees will own the
slaves, entirely freed from all such conditions. The legatees will be
under no other restraints than those imposed by the law, public opinion,
and their own conscience. The latter restraint only may possibly avail
the slaves; and their happy condition may be continued, _if_ all the
legatees are, like Dr. Fuller, law-defying, humane, kind-hearted, and
above want! But how unlikely is it that such will be the case! How much
more unlikely is it that such a state of things will continue! And yet,
unless such a state of things exists, and continues to exist, Dr.
Fuller's slaves must inevitably become as degraded as the great mass of
their fellows.
If he should die intestate, then his slaves, as part of his estate,
would have to be duly administered on and distributed among the
heirs-at-law. The administrator, a mere trustee, could not, as we have
seen, safely continue Dr. Fuller's plan of management; nor can it be
supposed that any administrator would follow it. If it became necessary
or expedient in order to pay debts, husbands would be separated from
wives, parents from children, and brothers from sisters. The widow (if
any) would be entitled to a life-estate in one-third of the slaves,
which one-third would be assigned to her in severalty, even though this
might involve a separation of families; for the common law of the Slave
States makes the same profession as the common law of England, that it
favors three things,--life, liberty, and dower! The remaining slaves,
and the reversion of those assigned to the widow, would belong to the
heirs, and would have to be equally divided between them, not divided by
families, or even _per capita_, but so that each heir should have an
equally valuable slave-investment, or an equal share in the property of
the deceased. If the heirs should be numerous, or the slaves few, so
that an equal division of them could not be thus made, they would have
to be sold, and their proceeds equally divided. Such sales must be
common. The following is taken from the "Georgia Journal:"--
"TO BE SOLD,--One negro-girl, about 18 months old, belonging to the
estate of William Chambers, deceased. _Sold for the purpose of
distribution._
JETHRO DEAN, } Executors."
SAMUEL BEALL,}
How often are heirs needy! How very seldom are they actuated by the same
spirit or governed by the same views as their ancestor! Some of them
might be under age, and legally incapable of acting for themselves; and
yet here, as in the other case, unless the widow and heirs-at-law should
be all of full age, ready to break the law of the State, and humane,
kind-hearted, and above want, like Dr. Fuller, his slaves could not
escape the common degradation of their fellows. How extremely improbable
is it that such would be the situation of the widow and all the heirs!
How much more improbable is it that such a state of things would
continue! How much more likely is it that we should find some of the
heirs disliking an investment in slaves, or wishing to be disembarrassed
of their care, or desirous to reduce their stock of negroes, and
accordingly selling their portion of Dr. Fuller's slaves at auction! In
the "Charleston (S.C.) Mercury" of Sept. 1, 1847, we find the
following:--
"FOR SALE,--A young and healthy negro-woman, about 24 years of age,
with her two children, a boy between 5 and 6 years, and an infant, 6
months old. _Sold for no fault but to change the property._ Apply at
this office."
This is from the "New Orleans Commercial Bulletin" of August 27, 1847:--
"DESIRABLE VIRGINIA HOUSE-SERVANT.--By Beard, Calhoun, & Co.
Saturday, 28th inst. at 12 o'clock, will be sold at auction, at
Banks's Arcade, the Griffe servant, Lucy, 19 years; a trusty
house-girl, of fine character, washer, ironer, and American cook,
and sews remarkably well. _Sold for no fault, as her owner is
leaving the city._ Fully guarantied against the vices and maladies
prescribed by law.--Terms cash. Act of sale before J. R. Beard,
notary public, at the expense of purchaser."
The "National Intelligencer" of August 1, 1848, contains the
following:--
"VALUABLE SERVANT AT PRIVATE SALE.--We have for sale a valuable
servant-girl, aged about 17 years. She is an excellent
house-servant. _Sold for no fault; the owner about removing to the
country._ ED. C. & G. F. DYER,
Auctioneers and Commission Merchants."
The same paper of January 20, 1844, contains the following:--
"FOR SALE,--Two likely mulatto women; one middle-aged, an excellent
cook, washer, and ironer, and a good seamstress; the other young,
and a good seamstress and house-servant; and both capable of doing
any work required in a family. _They are sold on account of the
owner not having sufficient employment._--Apply to Mr. Henry
Trunnel, Georgetown."
In the same paper, Nov. 2, 1844, we find this:--
"A NEGRO-BOY FOR SALE OR HIRE.--A boy, 16 years old, well-grown and
active, is for sale, but not to a trader. He has been employed in
attending to horses, driving a carriage, working in a garden, &c.
_and will be sold only because the owner has too many servants_. He
may be had on trial.--Apply at J. B. Holmead's Auction Rooms."
The boy is not to be sold to a trader; but there can be no security that
the purchaser will not thus sell him.
The "Spirit of Liberty" contains a notice, from "Scott's Intelligence
Office," of the sale of three negro girls, aged 10, 19, and 16 years
respectively, and a boy 14 years old. The notice states, "All the above
servants are sold for no faults, and are just from the country,
consigned to me for sale by their owners, who recommend them very
highly; _they wish to reduce their stock of negroes is the cause of
their being in the market for sale_."
Perhaps some one or more of Dr. Fuller's heirs may be indebted. What, in
such case, will prevent a creditor from levying on an undivided share of
Dr. Fuller's happy slaves? Perhaps the debtor may wish to convey his
property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors. We take the
following advertisement from the "National Anti-Slavery Standard," April
15, 1847:--
"TRUSTEE'S SALE.--Plantation and negroes in Washington County,
Mississippi; and Yazoo city town lot and buildings. On Monday, the
first of February, 1847, I will proceed to sell, by virtue of a
certain deed of trust, executed 10th May, 1845, by Thomas J. Reed,
to me, as trustee, and duly recorded in the proper county, and at
the special instance and request of the creditors named in said
deed, at public sale, to the highest bidder, for cash, on the
premises, the following described lands, situated, lying, and being
in the county of Washington, and State of Mississippi, and described
as follows, to wit:--
"Section No. 3, &c. &c.
"Also _one undivided half of the following named negroes, slaves for
life_, held jointly with the heirs of Baine, viz. Sophia, aged 45;
Nancy, 35; Queen, 40; Jane, 19; Rachel, 11; Priscella; Jenny, 60;
Maria, 30; Lydia, 30; Amanda, 22; Edna, 30; Vina, 36; Betsy, 35;
Ellen, 9; Peyton, 8; Bob, 4; Louis, 15; Chub, 8; Horace, 6; Louisa,
1; Jim, jr. 4; Mary, 4-1/2; Harriet, 6; Dick, 9; George, 5; Billy,
50; John Brown, 36; Alexander, 40; Louis Johnson, 62; Hatton, 35;
Jim, sen. 42; Frank, 50; John, jr. or Little John, 16; John
Mitchell, 47; Louis Davis, 40; Warren, 40; Ben, 36; Oliver, 40;
Louis, jr. or Charles Louis, 5; Lawson, 35; Sam, 19; Harvey, 21;
Fleming, 6; Amy, 4; Bonaparte, 3; Catherine (Queen's child), 2.
"And further, all the right, title, and interest of said Reed in and
to the following named slaves, to wit, Henny and her three children,
Dick, Jane, and Peter; together with all the stock of horses,
cattle, mules, hogs, and farming implements appertaining to said
tracts of land, which is believed to be an entire estate in fee.
"The above sale will be for cash, and I will convey to the purchaser
only such title as is vested in me by said deed of trust.
W. S. MOTT.
"No postponement on account of the weather."
Other cases might doubtless be put; but these are sufficient to enable
us to test the question of right and wrong. And no labored argument is
necessary. Dr. Fuller admits (what we have already proved) that
slaveholding is most generally wrong, because it is accompanied by the
mental and moral degradation of the slaves. But, by voluntarily
retaining the ownership of his slaves, he renders just such a
degradation almost inevitable even for them. Without the slightest
necessity for so doing, and solely because he wishes so to do, he
renders almost certain the hopeless degradation of his fellow-man. Such
conduct cannot be right, even though (as doubtless in his case) pursued
from right motives. No one has the right unnecessarily to impede our
spiritual or mental culture, even in the slightest degree,--much less
unnecessarily to expose us, almost certainly, to hopeless degradation.
No more have we the right, by holding our fellows in slavery, to render
almost inevitable the death of their souls.
Slaveholding, then, is _always_ wrong, because it either deliberately
murders the souls of its victims, or else renders such spiritual death
almost inevitable. Nor is slaveholding ever made right by the fact that
the slaves will not consent to be emancipated; for no man can rightfully
consent to his own degradation. What _man_ would consent to become even
the favored slave of Dr. Fuller?