[Footnote 22: Dr. Leland, in his "Necessity of a Divine Revelation,"

thus describes the prevalence of these shows among the Romans:--"They

were exhibited at the funerals of great and rich men, and on many

other occasions, by the Roman consuls, praetors, aediles, senators,

knights, priests, and almost all that bore great offices in the state,

as well as by the emperors; and in general, by all that had a mind to

make an interest with the people, who were extravagantly fond of those

kinds of shows. Not only the men, but the women, ran eagerly after

them; who were, by the prevalence of custom, so far divested of that

compassion and softness which is natural to the sex, that they took a

pleasure in seeing them kill one another, and only desired that they

should fall genteelly, and in an agreeable attitude. Such was the

frequency of those shows, and so great the number of men that were

killed on those occasions, that Lipsius says, no war caused such

slaughter of mankind, as did these sports of pleasure, throughout the

several provinces of the vast Roman empire."--_Leland's Neces. of Div.

Rev._ vol. ii. p. 51.]

Alexander, the tyrant of Phaeres, sobbed like a child over the

misfortunes of the Trojan queens, when the tragedy of Andromache and

Hecuba was played before him; yet he used to murder his subjects every

day for no crime, and without even setting up the pretence of any, but

merely _to make himself sport_.

The fact that slaveholders may be full of benevolence and kindness

toward their equals and toward whites generally, even so much so as to

attract the esteem and admiration of all, while they treat with the

most inhuman neglect their own slaves, is well illustrated by a

circumstance mentioned by the Rev. Dr. CHANNING, of Boston, (who once

lived in Virginia,) is his work on slavery, p. 162, 1st edition:--

"I cannot," says the doctor, "forget my feelings on visiting a

hospital belonging to the plantation of a gentleman _highly esteemed

for his virtues_, and whose manners and conversation expressed much

_benevolence_ and _conscientiousness_. When I entered with him the

hospital, the first object on which my eye fell was a young woman very

ill, probably approaching death. She was stretched on the floor. Her

head rested on something like a pillow, but her body and limbs were

extended on the hard boards. The owner, I doubt not, had, at least, as

much kindness as myself; but he was so used to see the slaves living

without common comforts, that the idea of unkindness in the present

instance did not enter his mind."

Mr. GEORGE A. AVERY, an elder of a Presbyterian church in Rochester,

N.Y. who resided some years in Virginia, says:--

"On one occasion I was crossing the plantation and approaching the

house of a friend, when I met him, _rifle in hand_, in pursuit of one

of his negroes, declaring he would shoot him in a moment if he got his

eye upon him. It appeared that the slave had refused to be flogged,

and ran off to avoid the consequences; _and yet the generous

hospitality of this man to myself, and white friends generally,

scarcely knew any bounds._

"There were amongst my slaveholding friends and acquaintances, persons

who were as _humane_ and _conscientious_ as men can be, and persist in

the impious claim of _property_ in a fellow being. Still I can

recollect but _one instance_ of corporal punishment, whether the

subject were male or female, in which the infliction was not on the

_bare back_ with the _raw hide_, or a similar instrument, the subject

being _tied_ during the operation to a post or tree. The _exception_

was under the following circumstances. I had taken a walk with a

friend on his plantation, and approaching his gang of slaves, I sat

down whilst he proceeded to the spot where they were at work; and

addressing himself somewhat earnestly to a female who was wielding the

hoe, in a moment caught up what I supposed a _tobacco stick_, (a stick

some three feet in length on which the tobacco, when out, is suspended

to dry.) about the size of a _man's wrist_, and laid on a number of

blows furiously over her head. The woman crouched, and seemed stunned

with the blows, but presently recommenced the motion of her hoe."

Dr. DAVID NELSON, a native of Tennessee, and late president of Marion

College, Missouri, in a lecture at Northampton, Mass. in January,

1839, made the following statement:--

"I remember a young lady who played well on the piano, and was very

ready to weep over any fictitious tale of suffering. I was present

when one of her slaves lay on the floor in a high fever, and we feared

she might not recover. I saw that young lady _stamp upon her with her

feet;_ and the only remark her mother made was, 'I am afraid Evelina

is too _much_ prejudiced against poor Mary.'"

General WILLIAM EATON, for some years U.S. Consul at Tunis, and

commander of the expedition against Tripoli, in 1895, thus gives vent

to his feelings at the sight of many hundreds of Sardinians who had

been enslaved by the Tunisians:

"Many have died of grief, and the others linger out a life less

tolerable than death. Alas! remorse seizes my whole soul when I

reflect, that this is indeed but a copy of the very barbarity which

_my eyes have seen_ in my own native country. _How frequently_, in the

southern states of my own country, have I seen _weeping mothers_

leading the guiltless infant to the sales with as _deep anguish_ as if

they led them to the slaughter; and _yet felt my bosom tranquil_ in

the view of these aggressions on defenceless humanity. But when I see

the same enormities practised upon beings whose complexions and blood

claim kindred with my own, _I curse the perpetrators, and weep over

the wretched victims of their rapacity._ Indeed, truth and justice

demand from me the confession, that the Christian slaves among the

barbarians of Africa are treated with more humanity than the African

slaves among professing Christians of civilized America; and yet

_here_ [in Tunis] sensibility _bleeds at every pore_ for the wretches

whom fate has doomed to slavery."

Rev. H. LYMAN, late pastor of the free Presbyterian Church, Buffalo,

N.Y. who spent the winter of 1832-3 at the south, says:--

"In the interior of Mississippi I was invited to the house of a

planter, where I was received with great cordiality, and entertained

with marked hospitality.

"There I saw a master in the midst of his household slaves. The

evening passed most pleasantly, as indeed it must, where assiduous

hospitalities are exercised towards the guest.

"Late in the morning, when I had gained the tardy consent of my host

to go on my way, as a final act of kindness, he called a slave to show

me across the fields by a nearer route to the main road. 'David,' said

he, 'go and show this gentleman as far as the post-office. Do you know

the big bay tree?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Do you know where the cotton mill is?'

'Yes, sir.' 'Where Squire Malcolm's old field is?' 'Y--e--s, sir,'

said David, (beginning to be bewildered). 'Do you know where Squire

Malcolm's cotton field is?' 'No, sir.' 'No, sir,' said the enraged

master, _levelling his gun at him_. 'What do you stand here, saying,

Yes, yes, yes, for, when you don't know?' All this was accompanied

with _threats_ and _imprecations_, and a manner that contrasted

strangely with the _religious conversation and gentle manners_ of the

previous evening."

The Rev. JAMES H. DICKEY, formerly a slaveholder in South Carolina,

now pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Hennepin, Ill. in his "Review

of Nevins' Biblical Antiquities," after asserting that slaveholding

tends to beget "a spirit of cruelty and tyranny, and to destroy every

generous and noble feeling," (page 33,) he adds the following as a

note:--

"It may be that this will be considered censorious, and the proverbial

generosity and hospitality of the south will be appealed to as a full

confutation of it. The writer thinks he can appreciate southern

kindness and hospitality. Having been born in Virginia, raised and

educated in South Carolina and Kentucky, he is altogether southern in

his feelings, and habits, and modes of familiar conversation. He can

say of the south as Cowper said of England, 'With all thy faults I

love thee still, my country.' And nothing but the abominations of

slavery could have induced him willingly to forsake a land endeared to

him by all the associations of childhood and youth.

"Yet it is candid to admit that it is not all gold that glitters.

There is a fictitious kindness and hospitality. The famous Robin Hood

was kind and generous--no man more hospitable--he robbed the rich to

supply the necessities of the poor. Others rob the poor to bestow

gifts and lavish kindness and hospitality on their rich friends and

neighbors. It is an easy matter for a man to appear kind and generous,

when he bestows that which others have earned.

"I said, there is a fictitious kindness and hospitality. I once knew a

man who left his wife and children three days, without fire-wood,

without bread-stuff and without shoes, while the ground was covered

with snow--that he might indulge in his cups. And when I attempted to

expostulate with him, he took the subject out of my hands, and

expatiating on the evils of intemperance more eloquently than I could,

concluded by warning me, _with tears_, to avoid the snares of the

latter. He had tender feelings, yet a hard heart. I once knew a young

lady of polished manners and accomplished education, who would weep

with sympathy over the fictitious woes exhibited in a novel. And

waking from her reverie of grief, while her eye was yet wet with

tears, would call her little waiter, and if she did not appear at the

first call, would rap her head with her thimble till my head ached.

"I knew a man who was famed for kindly sympathies. He once took off

his shirt and gave it to a poor white man. The same man hired a black

man, and gave him for his _daily task_, through the winter, to feed

the beasts, keep fires, and make one hundred rails: and in case of

failure the lash was applied so freely, that, in the spring, his back

was _one continued sore, from his shoulders to his waist_. Yet this

man was a professor of religion, and famous for his tender sympathies

to white men!"

OBJECTION IV.--'NORTHERN VISITORS AT THE SOUTH TESTIFY THAT THE SLAVES

ARE NOT CRUELLY TREATED.'

ANSWER:--Their knowledge on this point must have been derived, either

from the slaveholders and overseers themselves, or from the slaves, or

from their own observation. If from the slaveholders, _their_

testimony has already been weighed and found wanting; if they derived

it from the slaves, they can hardly be so simple as to suppose that

the _guest, associate and friend of the master_, would be likely to

draw from his _slaves_ any other testimony respecting his treatment of

them, than such as would please _him_. The great shrewdness and tact

exhibited by slaves in _keeping themselves out of difficulty_, when

close questioned by strangers as to their treatment, cannot fail to

strike every accurate observer. The following remarks of CHIEF JUSTICE

HENDERSON, a North Carolina slaveholder, in his decision (in 1830,) in

the case of the State _versus_ Charity, 2 Devereaux's North Carolina

Reports, 513, illustrate the folly of arguing the good treatment of

slaves from their own declarations, _while in the power of their

masters_. In the case above cited, the Chief Justice, in refusing to

permit a master to give in evidence, declarations made to him by his

slave, says of masters and slaves generally--

"The master has an almost _absolute control_ over the body and _mind_

of his slave. The master's _will_ is the slave's _will_. All his acts,

_all his sayings_, are made with a view to propitiate his master. His

confessions are made, not from a love of truth, not from a sense of

duty, not to speak a falsehood, but to _please his master_--and it is

in vain that his master tells him to speak the truth and conceals from

him how he wishes the question answered. The slave _will_ ascertain,

or, which is the same thing, think that he has ascertained _the wishes

of his master,_ and MOULD HIS ANSWER ACCORDINGLY. We therefore more

often get the wishes of the master, or the slave's belief of his

wishes, than the truth."

The following extract of a letter from the Hon. SETH M. GATES, member

elect of the next Congress, furnishes a clue by which to interpret the

looks, actions, and protestations of slaves, when in the presence of

their masters' guests, and the pains sometimes taken by slaveholders,

in teaching their slaves the art of _pretending_ that they are treated

well, love their masters, are happy, &c. The letter is dated Leroy,

Jan. 4, 1839.

"I have sent your letter to Rev. Joseph M. Sadd, Castile, Genesee

county, who resided five years in a slave state, and left, disgusted

with slavery. I trust he will give you some facts. I remember one

fact, which his wife witnessed. A relative, where she boarded,

returning to his plantation after a temporary absence, was not met by

his servants with such demonstrations of joy as was their wont. He

ordered his horse put out, took down his whip, ordered his servants to

the barn, and gave them a most cruel beating, because they did not run

out to meet him, and pretend great attachment to him. Mrs. Sadd had

overheard the servants agreeing not to go out, before his return, as

they said _they did not love him_--and this led her to watch his

conduct to them. This man was a professor of religion!"

If these northern visitors derived their information that the slaves

are _not_ cruelly treated from _their own observation_, it amounts to

this, _they did not see_ cruelties inflicted on the slaves. To which

we reply, that the preceding pages contain testimony from hundreds of

witnesses, who testify that they _did see_ the cruelties whereof they

affirm. Besides this, they contain the solemn declarations of scores

of slaveholders themselves, in all parts of the slave states, that the

slaves are cruelly treated. These declarations are moreover fully

corroborated, by the laws of slave states, by a multitude of

advertisements in their newspapers, describing runaway slaves, by

their scars, brands, gashes, maimings, cropped ears, iron collars,

chains, &c. &c.

Truly, after the foregoing array of facts and testimony, and after the

objectors' forces have one after another filed off before them, now to

march up a phalanx of northern _visitors_, is to beat a retreat.

'Visitors!' What insight do casual visitors get into the tempers and

daily practices of those whom they visit, or of the treatment that

their slaves receive at their hands, especially if these visitors are

strangers, and from a region where there are no slaves, and which

claims to be opposed to slavery? What opportunity has a stranger, and

a temporary guest, to learn the every-day habits and caprices of his

host? Oh, these northern visitors tell us they have visited scores of

families at the south and never saw a master or mistress whip their

slaves. Indeed! They have, doubtless, visited hundreds of families at

the north--did they ever see, on such occasions, the father or mother

whip their children? If so, they must associate with very ill-bred

persons. Because well-bred parents do not whip their children in the

presence, or within the hearing of their guests are we to infer that

they never do it _out_ of their sight and hearing? But perhaps the

fact that these visitors do not _remember_ seeing slaveholders strike

their slaves, merely proves, that they had so little feeling for them,

that though they might be struck every day in their presence, yet as

they were only slaves and 'niggers,' it produced no effect upon them;

consequently they have no impressions to recall. These visitors have

also doubtless _rode_ with scores of slaveholders. Are they quite

certain they ever saw them whip their _horses_? and can they recall

the persons, times, places, and circumstances? But even if these

visitors regarded the slaves with some kind feelings, when they first

went to the south, yet being constantly with their oppressors, seeing

them used as articles of property, accustomed to hear them charged

with all kinds of misdemeanors, their ears filled with complaints of

their laziness, carelessness, insolence, obstinacy, stupidity, thefts,

elopements, &c. and at the same time, receiving themselves the most

gratifying attentions and caresses from the same persons, who, while

they make to them these representations of their slaves, are giving

them airings in their coaches, making parties for them, taking them on

excursions of pleasure, lavishing upon them their choicest

hospitalities, and urging them to protract indefinitely their

stay--what more natural than for the flattered guest to admire such

hospitable people, catch their spirit, and fully sympathize with their

feelings toward their slaves, regarding with increased disgust and

aversion those who can habitually tease and worry such loveliness and

generosity[23]. After the visitor had been in contact with the

slave-holding spirit long enough to have imbibed it, (no very tedious

process,) a cuff, or even a kick administered to a slave, would not be

likely to give him such a shock that his memory would long retain the

traces of it. But lest we do these visitors injustice, we will suppose

that they carried with them to the south humane feelings for the

slave, and that those feelings remained unblunted; still, what

opportunity could they have to witness the actual condition of the

slaves? They come in contact with the house-servants only, and as a

general thing, with none but the select ones of these, the

_parlor_-servants; who generally differ as widely in their appearance

and treatment from the cooks and scullions in the kitchen, as parlor

furniture does from the kitchen utensils. Certain servants are

assigned to the parlor, just as certain articles of furniture are

selected for it, _to be seen_--and it is no less ridiculous to infer

that the kitchen scullions are clothed and treated like those servants

who wait at the table, and are in the presence of guests, than to

infer that the kitchen is set out with sofas, ottomans, piano-fortes,

and full-length mirrors, because the parlor is. But the house-slaves

are only a fraction of the whole number. The _field-hands_ constitute

the great mass of the slaves, and these the visitors rarely get a

glimpse at. They are away at their work by day-break, and do not

return to their huts till dark. Their huts are commonly at some

distance from the master's mansion, and the fields in which they

labor, generally much farther, and out of sight. If the visitor

traverses the plantation, care is taken that he does not go alone; if

he expresses a wish to see it, the horses are saddled, and the master

or his son gallops the rounds with him; if he expresses a desire to

see the slaves at work, his conductor will know _where_ to take him,

and _when_, and _which_ of them to show; the overseer, too, knows

quite too well the part he has to act on such occasions, to shock the

uninitiated ears of the visitors with the shrieks of his victims. It

is manifest that visitors can see only the least repulsive parts of

slavery, inasmuch as it is wholly at the option of the master, what

parts to show them; as a matter of necessity, he can see only the

_outside_--and that, like the outside of doorknobs and andirons is

furbished up to be _looked at_. So long as it is human nature to wear

_the best side out_, so long the northern guests of southern

slaveholders will see next to nothing of the reality of slavery. Those

visitors may still keep up their autumnal migrations to the slave

states, and, after a hasty survey of the tinsel hung before the

curtain of slavery, without a single glance behind it, and at the

paint and varnish that _cover up_ dead men's bones, and while those

who have hoaxed them with their smooth stories and white-washed

specimens of slavery, are tittering at their gullibility, they return

in the spring on the same fool's-errand with their predecessors,

retailing their lesson, and mouthing the praises of the masters, and

the comforts of the slaves. They now become village umpires in all

disputes about the condition of the slaves, and each thence forward

ends all controversies with his oracular, "I've _seen_, and sure I

ought to know."

[Footnote 23: Well saith the Scripture, "A gift blindeth the eyes." The

slaves understand this, though the guest may not; they know very well

that they have no sympathy to expect from their master's guests; that

the good cheer of the "big house," and the attentions shown them, will

generally commit them in their master's favor, and against themselves.

Messrs. Thome and Kimball, in their late work, state the following

fact, in illustration of this feeling among the negro apprentices in

Jamaica.

"The governor of one of the islands, shortly after his arrival, dined

with one of the wealthiest proprietors. The next day one of the

negroes of the estate said to another, "De new gubner been

_poison'd_." "What dat you say?" inquired the other in astonishment,

"De gubner been _poison'd_! Dah, now!--How him poisoned?" "_Him eat

massa's turtle soup last night_," said the shrewd negro. The other

took his meaning at once; and his sympathy for the governor was

turned into concern for himself, when he perceived that the

poison was one from which he was likely to suffer more than his

excellency."--_Emancipation in the West Indies_, p. 334.]

But all northern visitors at the south are not thus easily gulled.

Many of them, as the preceding pages show, have too much sense to be

caught with chaff.

We may add here, that those classes of visitors whose representations

of the treatment of slaves are most influential in moulding the

opinions of the free states, are ministers of the gospel, agents of

benevolent societies, and teachers who have traveled and temporarily

resided in the slave states--classes of persons less likely than any

others to witness cruelties, because slaveholders generally take more

pains to keep such visitors in ignorance than others, because their

vocations would furnish them fewer opportunities for witnessing them,

and because they come in contact with a class of society in which

fewer atrocities are committed than in any other, and that too, under

circumstances which make it almost impossible for them to witness

those which are actually committed.

Of the numerous classes of persons from the north who temporarily

reside in the slave states, the mechanics who find employment on the

_plantations_, are the only persons who are in circumstances to look

"behind the scenes." Merchants, pedlars, venders of patents, drovers,

speculators, and almost all descriptions of persons who go from the

free states to the south to make money see little of slavery, except

_upon the road_, at public inns, and in villages and cities.

Let not the reader infer from what has been said, that the

_parlor_-slaves, chamber-maids, &c. in the slave states are not

treated with cruelty--far from it. They often experience terrible

inflictions; not generally so terrible or so frequent as the

field-hands, and very rarely in the presence of guests[24]

House-slaves are for the most part treated far better than

plantation-slaves, and those under the immediate direction of the

master and mistress, than those under overseers and drivers. It is

quite worthy of remark, that of the thousands of northern men who have

visited the south, and are always lauding the kindness of slaveholders

and the comfort of the slaves, protesting that they have never seen

cruelties inflicted on them, &c. each perhaps, without exception, has

some story to tell which reveals, better perhaps than the most

barbarous butchery could do, a public sentiment toward slaves, showing

that the most cruel inflictions must of necessity be the constant

portion of the slaves.

[Footnote 24: Rev. JOSEPH M. SADD, a Presbyterian clergyman, in

Castile, Genesee county, N.Y. recently from Missouri, where he has

preached five years, in the midst of slaveholders, says, in a letter

just received, speaking of the pains taken by slaveholders to conceal

from the eyes of strangers and visitors, the cruelties which they

inflict upon their slaves--

"It is difficult to be an eye-witness of these things; the master and

mistress, almost invariably punish their slaves only in the presence

of themselves and other slaves."]

Though facts of this kind lie thick in every corner, the reader will,

we are sure, tolerate even a needless illustration, if told that it is

from the pen of N.P. Rogers, Esq. of Concord, N.H. who, whatever he

writes, though it be, as in this case, a mere hasty letter, always

finds readers to the end.

"At a court session at Guilford, Stafford county, N.H. in August,

1837, the Hon. Daniel M. Durell, of Dover, formerly Chief Justice

of the Common Pleas for that state, and a member of Congress,

was charging the abolitionists, in presence of several gentlemen

of the bar, at their boarding house, with exaggerations and

misrepresentations of slave treatment at the south. 'One instance

in particular,' he witnessed, he said, where he 'knew they

misrepresented. It was in the Congregational meeting house at Dover.

He was passing by, and saw a crowd entering and about the door; and on

inquiry, found that _abolition was going on in there_. He stood in the

entry for a moment, and found the Englishman, Thompson, was holding

forth. The fellow was speaking of the treatment of slaves; and he said

it was no uncommon thing for masters, when exasperated with the slave,

to hang him up by the two thumbs, and flog him. I knew the fellow lied

there,' said the judge, 'for I had traveled through the south, from

Georgia north, and I never saw a single instance of the kind. The

fellow said it was a common thing.' 'Did you see any _exasperated

masters_, Judge,' said I, 'in your journey?' 'No sir,' said he, 'not

an individual instance.' 'You hardly are able to convict Mr. Thompson

of falsehood, then, Judge,' said I, 'if I understood you right. He

spoke, as I understood you, of _exasperated masters_--and you say you

did not see any. Mr. Thompson did not say it was common for masters in

good humor to hang up their slaves.' The Judge did not perceive the

materiality of the distinction. 'Oh, they misrepresent and lie about

this treatment of the niggers,' he continued. 'In going through all

the states I visited, I do not now remember a single instance of cruel

treatment. Indeed, I remember of seeing but one nigger struck, during

my whole journey. There was one instance. We were riding in the stage,

pretty early one morning, and we met a black fellow, driving a span of

horses, and a load (I think he said) of hay. The fellow turned out

before we got to him, clean down into the ditch, as far as he could

get. He knew, you see, what to depend on, if he did not give the road.

Our driver, as we passed the fellow, fetched him a smart crack with

his whip across the chops. He did not make any noise, though I guess

it hurt him some--he grinned.--Oh, no! these fellows exaggerate. The

niggers, as a general thing, are kindly treated. There may be

exceptions, but I saw nothing of it.' (By the way, the Judge did not

know there were any abolitionists present.) 'What did you _do_ to the

driver, Judge,' said I, 'for striking that man?' 'Do,' said he, 'I did

nothing to him, to be sure.' 'What did you _say_ to him, sir?' said I.

'Nothing,' he replied: 'I said nothing to him.' 'What did the other

passengers do?' said I. 'Nothing, sir,' said the Judge. 'The fellow

turned out the white of his eye, but he did not make any noise.' 'Did

the driver say any thing, Judge, when he struck the man?' 'Nothing,'

said the Judge, 'only he _damned him_, and told him he'd learn him to

keep out of the reach of his whip.' 'Sir,' said I, 'if George Thompson

had told this story, in the warmth of an anti-slavery speech, I should

scarcely have credited it. I have attended many anti-slavery meetings,

and I never heard an instance of such _cold-blooded, wanton,

insolent_, DIABOLICAL cruelty as this; and, sir, if I live to attend

another meeting, I shall relate this, and give Judge Durell's name as

the witness of it.' An infliction of the most insolent character,

entirely unprovoked, on a perfect stranger, who had showed the utmost

civility, in giving all the road, and only could not get beyond the

long reach of the driver's whip--and he a stage driver, a class

_generous_ next to the sailor, in the sober hour of morning--and

_borne in silence_--and _told to show that the colored man of the

south was kindly treated_--all evincing, to an unutterable extent,

that the temper of the south toward the slave is merciless, even to

_diabolism_--and that the north regards him with, if possible, a more

fiendish indifference still!"

It seems but an act of simple justice to say, in conclusion, that many

of the slaveholders from whom our northern visitors derive their

information of the "good treatment" of the slave, may not design to

deceive them. Such visitors are often, perhaps generally brought in

contact with the better class of slaveholders, whose slaves are really

better fed, clothed, lodged, and housed; more moderately worked; more

seldom whipped, and with less severity, than the slaves generally.

Those masters in speaking of the good condition of their slaves, and

asserting that they are treated _well_, use terms that are not

_absolute_ but _comparative_: and it may be, and doubtless often is

true that their stares are treated well _as slaves_, in comparison

with the treatment received by slaves generally. So the overseers of

such slaves, and the slaves themselves, may, without lying or

designing to mislead, honestly give the same testimony. As the great

body of slaves within their knowledge _fare worse_, it is not strange

that, when speaking of the treatment on their own plantation, they

should call it _good_.

OBJECTION V.--'IT IS FOR THE INTEREST OF THE MASTERS TO TREAT THEIR

SLAVES WELL.'

So it is for the interest of the drunkard to quit his cups; for the

glutton to curb his appetite; for the debauchee to bridle his lust;

for the sluggard to be up betimes; for the spendthrift to be

economical, and for all sinners to stop sinning. Even if it were for

the interest of masters to treat their slaves well, he must be a

novice who thinks _that_ a proof that the slaves _are_ well treated.

The whole history of man is a record of real interests sacrificed to

present gratification. If all men's actions were consistent with their

best interests, folly and sin would be words without meaning.

If the objector means that it is for the pecuniary interests of

masters to treat their slaves well, and thence infers their good

treatment, we reply, that though the love of money is strong, yet

appetite and lust, pride, anger and revenge, the love of power and

honor, are each an overmatch for it; and when either of them is roused

by a sudden stimulant, the love of money worsted in the grapple with

it. Look at the hourly lavish outlays of money to procure a momentary

gratification for those passions and appetites. As the desire for

money is, in the main, merely a desire for the means of gratifying

_other_ desires, or rather for one of the means, it must be the

_servant_ not the sovereign of those desires, to whose gratification

its only use is to minister. But even if the love of money were the

strongest human passion, who is simple enough to believe that it is

all the time so powerfully excited, that no other passion or appetite

can get the mastery over it? Who does not know that gusts of rage,

revenge, jealousy and lust drive it before them as a tempest tosses a

feather?

The objector has forgotten his first lessons; they taught him that it

is human nature to gratify the _uppermost_ passion: and is _prudence_

the uppermost passion with slaveholders, and self-restraint their

great characteristic? The strongest feeling of any moment is the

sovereign of that moment, and rules. Is a propensity to practice

_economy_ the predominant feeling with slaveholders? Ridiculous!

Every northerner knows that slaveholders are proverbial for lavish

expenditures, never higgling about the _price_ of a gratification.

Human passions have not, like the tides, regular ebbs and flows, with

their stationary, high and low water marks. They are a dominion

convulsed with revolutions; coronations and dethronements in ceasless

succession--each ruler a usurper and a despot. Love of money gets a

snatch at the sceptre as well as the rest, not by hereditary right,

but because, in the fluctuations of human feelings, a chance wave

washes him up to the throne, and the next perhaps washes him off

without time to nominate his successor. Since, then, as a matter of

fact, a host of appetites and passions do hourly get the better of

love of money, what protection does the slave find in his master's

_interest_, against the sweep of his passions and appetites? Besides,

a master can inflict upon his slave horrible cruelties without

perceptibly injuring his health, or taking time from his labor, or

lessening his value as property. Blows with a small stick give more

acute pain, than with a large one. A club bruises, and benumbs the

nerves, while a switch, neither breaking nor bruising the flesh,

instead of blunting the sense of feeling, wakes up and stings to

torture all the susceptibilities of pain. By this kind of infliction,

more actual cruelty can be perpetrated in the giving of pain at the

instant, than by the most horrible bruisings and lacerations; and

that, too, with little comparative hazard to the slave's health, or to

his value as property, and without loss of time from labor. Even

giving to the objection all the force claimed for it, what protection

is it to the slave? It _professes_ to shield the slave from such

treatment alone, as would either lay him aside from labor, or injure

his health, and thus lessen his value as a working animal, making him

a _damaged article_ in the market. Now, is nothing _bad treatment_ of

a human being except that which produces these effects? Does the fact

that a man's constitution is not actually shattered, and his life

shortened by his treatment, prove that he is treated well? Is no

treatment cruel except what sprains muscles, or cuts sinews, or bursts

blood vessels, or breaks bones, and thus lessens a man's value as a

working animal?

A slave may get blows and kicks every hour in the day, without having

his constitution broken, or without suffering sensibly in his health,

or flesh, or appetite, or power to labor. Therefore, beaten and kicked

as he is, he must be treated _well_, according to the objector, since

the master's _interest_ does not suffer thereby.

Finally, the objector virtually maintains that all possible privations

and inflictions suffered by slaves, that do not actually cripple their

power to labor, and make them 'damaged merchandize,' are to be set

down as 'good treatment,' and that nothing is _bad_ treatment except

what produces these effects.

Thus we see that even if the slave were effectually shielded from all

those inflictions, which, by lessening his value as property, would

injure the interests of his master, he would still nave no protection

against numberless and terrible cruelties. But we go further, and

maintain that in respect to large classes of slaves, it is for the

_interest_ of their masters to treat them with barbarous inhumanity.

1. _Old slaves._ It would be for the interest of the masters to

shorten their days.

2. _Worn out slaves._ Multitudes of slaves by being overworked, have

their constitutions broken in middle life. It would be _economical_

for masters to starve or flog such to death.

3. _The incurably diseased and maimed._ In all such cases it would be

_cheaper_ for masters to buy poison than medicine.

4. _The blind, lunatics, and idiots_. As all such would be a tax on

him, it would be for his interest to shorten their days.

5. _The deaf and dumb, and persons greatly deformed._ Such might or

might not be serviceable to him; many of them at least would be a

burden, and few men carry burdens when they can throw them off.

6. _Feeble infants._ As such would require much nursing, the time,

trouble and expense necessary to raise them, would generally be more

than they would be worth as _working animals_. How many such infants

would be likely to be 'raised,' from _disinterested_ benevolence? To

this it may be added that in the far south and south west, it is

notoriously for the interest of the master not to 'raise' slaves at

all. To buy slaves when nearly grown, from the northern slave states,

would be _cheaper_ than to raise them. This is shown in the fact, that

mothers with infants sell for less in those states than those without

them. And when slave-traders purchase such in the upper country, it is

notorious that they not unfrequently either sell their infants, or

give them away. Therefore it would be for the _interest_ of the

masters, throughout that region, to have all the new-born children

left to perish. It would also be for their interest to make such

arrangements as effectually to separate the sexes, or if that were not

done, so to overwork the females as to prevent childbearing.

7. _Incorrigible slaves_. On most of the large plantations, there are,

more or less, incorrigible slaves,--that is, slaves who _will not_ be

profitable to their masters--and from whom torture can extort little

but defiance.[25] These are frequently slaves of uncommon minds, who

feel so keenly the wrongs of slavery that their proud spirits spurn

their chains and defy their tormentors.

[Footnote 25: Advertisements like the following are not unfrequent in

the southern papers.

_From the Elizabeth (N.C.) Phenix, Jan. 5, 1839._ "The subscriber

offers for sale his blacksmith NAT, 28 years of age, and _remarkably

large and likely_. The only cause of my selling him is I CANNOT

CONTROL HIM. _Hertford, Dec.5, 1838._ J. GORDON."]

They have commonly great sway over the other slaves, their example is

contagious, and their influence subversive of 'plantation discipline.'

Consequently they must be made a warning to others. It is for the

_interest_ of the masters (at least they believe it to be) to put upon

such slaves iron collars and chains, to brand and crop them; to

disfigure, lacerate, starve and torture them--in a word, to inflict

upon them such vengeance as shall strike terror into the other slaves.

To this class may be added the incorrigibly thievish and indolent; it

would be for the interest of the masters to treat them with such

severity as would deter others from following their example.

7. _Runaways._ When a slave has once runaway from his master and is

caught, he is thenceforward treated with severity. It is for the

interest of the master to make an example of him, by the greatest

privations and inflictions.

8. _Hired slaves._ It is for the interest of those who hire slaves to

get as much out of them as they can; the temptation to overwork them

is powerful. If it be said that the master could, in that case,

recover damages, the answer is, that damages would not be recoverable

in law unless actual injury--enough to impair the power of the slave

to labor, be _proved._ And this ordinarily would be impossible, unless

the slave has been worked so greatly beyond his strength as to produce

some fatal derangement of the vital functions. Indeed, as all who are

familiar with such cases in southern courts well know, the proof of

actual injury to the slave, so as to lessen his value, is exceedingly

difficult to make out, and every hirer of slaves can overwork them,

give them insufficient food, clothing, and shelter, and inflict upon

them nameless cruelties with entire impunity. We repeat then that it

is for the _interest_ of the hirer to push his slaves to their utmost

strength, provided he does not drive them to such an extreme, that

their constitutions actually give way under it, while in his hands.

The supreme court of Maryland has decided that, 'There must be _at

least a diminution of the faculty of the slave for bodily labor_ to

warrant an action by the master.'--_1 Harris and Johnson's Reports,

4._

9. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are proportioned to the crop

which they raise._ This is an arrangement common in the slave states,

and in its practical operation is equivalent to a bounty on _hard

driving_--a virtual premium offered to overseers to keep the slaves

whipped up to the top of their strength. Even where the overseer has a

fixed salary, irrespective of the value of the crop which he takes

off, he is strongly tempted to overwork the slaves, as those overseers

get the highest wages who can draw the largest income from a

plantation with a given number of slaves; so that we may include in

this last class of slaves, the majority of all those who are under

overseers, whatever the terms on which those overseers are employed.

Another class of slaves may be mentioned; we refer to the slaves of

masters who _bet_ upon their crops. In the cotton and sugar region

there is a fearful amount of this desperate gambling, in which, though

money is the ostensible stake and forfeit, human life is the real one.

The length to which this rivalry is carried at the south and south

west, the multitude of planters who engage in it, and the recklessness

of human life exhibited in driving the murderous game to its issue,

cannot well be imagined by one who has not lived in the midst of it.

Desire of gain is only one of the motives that stimulates them;--the

_eclat_ of having made the largest crop with a given number of hands,

is also a powerful stimulant; the southern newspapers, at the crop

season, chronicle carefully the "cotton brag," and the "crack cotton

picking," and "unparalleled driving," &c. Even the editors of

professedly religious papers, cheer on the méleé and sing the triumphs

of the victor. Among these we recollect the celebrated Rev. J.N.

Maffit, recently editor of a religious paper at Natchez, Miss. in

which he took care to assign a prominent place, and capitals to "THE

COTTON BRAG." The testimony of Mr. Bliss, page 38, details some of the

particulars of this _betting_ upon crops. All the preceding classes of

slaves are in circumstances which make it "for the _interest_ of their

masters," or those who have the management of them, to treat them

cruelly.

Besides the operation of the causes already specified, which make it

for the interest of masters and overseers to treat cruelly _certain

classes_ of their slaves, a variety of others exist, which make it for

their interest to treat cruelly _the great body_ of their slaves.

These causes are, the nature of certain kinds of products, the kind of

labor required in cultivating and preparing them for market, the best

times for such labor, the state of the market, fluctuations in prices,

facilities for transportation, the weather, seasons, &c. &c. Some of

the causes which operate to produce this are--

1. _The early market_. If the planter can get his crop into market

early, he may save thousands which might be lost if it arrived later.

2. _Changes in the market_. A sudden rise in the market with the

probability that it will be short, or a gradual fall with a

probability that it will be long, is a strong temptation to the master

to push his slaves to the utmost, that he may in the one case make all

he can, by taking the tide at the flood, and in the other lose as

little as may be, by taking it as early as possible in the ebb.

3. _High prices_. Whenever the slave-grown staples bring a high price,

as is now the case with cotton, every slaveholder is tempted to

overwork his slaves. By forcing them to do double work for a few weeks

or months, while the price is up, he can _afford_ to lose a number of

them and to lessen the value of all by over-driving. A cotton planter

with a hundred vigorous slaves, would have made a profitable

speculation, if, during the years '34, 5, and 6, when the average

price of cotton was 17 cents a pound, he had so overworked his slaves

that half of them died upon his hands in '37, when cotton had fallen

to six and eight cents. No wonder that the poor slaves pray that cotton

and sugar may be cheap. The writer has frequently heard it declared by

planters in the lower country, that, it is more profitable to drive

the slaves to such over exertion as to _use them up_, in seven or

eight years, than to give them only ordinary tasks and protract their

lives to the ordinary period.[26]

[Footnote 26: The reader is referred to a variety of facts and

testimony on this point on the 39th page of this work.]

4. _Untimely seasons_. When the winter encroaches on the spring, and

makes late seed time, the first favorable weather is a temptation to

overwork the slaves, too strong to be resisted by those who hold men

as mere working animals. So when frosts set in early, and a great

amount of work is to be done in a little time, or great loss suffered.

So also after a long storm either in seed or crop time, when the

weather becomes favorable, the same temptation presses, and in all

these cases the master would _save money_ by overdriving his slaves.

5. _Periodical pressure of certain kinds of labor._ The manufacture of

sugar is an illustration. In a work entitled "Travels in Louisiana in

1802," translated from the French, by John Davis, is the following

testimony under this head:--

"At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months,

they (the slaves in Louisiana,) work _both night and day_. Abridged of

their sleep, they scarcely retire to rest during the whole period" See

page 81.

In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, published in the second

number of the "Western Review," is the following:--"The work is

admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the

process of making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY."

It would be for the interest of the sugar planter greatly to overwork

his slaves, during the annual process of sugar-making.

The severity of this periodical pressure, in preparing for market

other staples of the slave states besides sugar, may be inferred from

the following. Mr. Hammond, of South Carolina, in his speech in

Congress, Feb. 1. 1836, (See National Intelligencer) said, "In the

heat of the crop, the loss of one or two days, would inevitably ruin

it."

6. _Times of scarcity_. Drought, long rain, frost, &c. are liable to

cut off the corn crop, upon which the slaves are fed. If this happens

when the staple which they raise is at a low price, it is for the

interest of the master to put the slave on short rations, thus forcing

him to suffer from hunger.

7. _The raising of crops for exportation_. In all those states where

cotton and sugar are raised for exportation, it is, for the most part,

more profitable to buy provisions for the slaves than to raise them.

Where this is the case the slaveholders believe it to be for their

interest to give their slaves less food, than their hunger craves, and

they do generally give them insufficient sustenance.[27]

[Footnote 27: Hear the testimony of a slaveholder, on this subject, a

member of Congress from Virginia, from 1817 to 1830, Hon. Alexander

Smyth.

In the debate on the Missouri question in the U.S. Congress, 1819-20,

the admission of Missouri to the Union, as a slave state, was urged,

among other grounds, as a measure of humanity to the slaves of the

south. Mr. Smyth, of Virginia said, "The plan of our opponents seems

to be to confine the slave population to the southern states, to the

countries where _sugar, cotton, and tobacco_ are cultivated. But, sir,

by confining the slaves to a part of the country where crops are

raised for exportation, and the bread and meat are _purchased, you

doom them to scarcity and hunger_. Is it not obvious that the way to

render their situation more comfortable, is to allow them to be taken

where there is not the same motive to force the slave to INCESSANT

TOIL, that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco,

are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks _where

they are_ HARD WORKED and ILL FED, that they may be rendered

unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. . . . The

proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks. . . . You

would . . . doom them to SCARCITY and HARD LABOR."--[Speech of Mr.

Smyth, Jan. 28, 1820]--See National Intelligencer.

Those states where the crops are raised for exportation, and a large

part of the provisions purchased, are, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Alabama, Arkansas, Western Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and, to a

considerable extent, South Carolina. That this is the case in

Louisiana, is shown by the following. "Corn, flour, and bread stuffs,

generally are obtained from Kentucky, Ohio;" &c. See "Emigrants Guide

through the Valley of the Mississippi," Page 275. That it is the case

with Alabama, appears from the testimony of W. Jefferson Jones, Esq. a

lawyer of high standing in Mobile. In a series of articles published

by him in the Mobile Morning Chronicle, he says; (See that paper for

Aug. 26, 1837.)

"The people of Alabama _export_ what they raise, and _import_ nearly

all they consume." But it seems quite unnecessary to prove, what all

persons of much intelligence well know, that the states mentioned

export the larger part of what they raise, and import the larger part

of what they consume. Now more than _one million of slaves_ are held

in those states, and parts of states, where provisions are mainly

imported, and consequently they are "_doomed to scarcity and hunger_."]

Now let us make some estimate of the proportion which the slaves,

included in the foregoing _nine classes_, sustain to the whole number,

and then of the proportion affected by the operation of the _seven_

causes just enumerated.

It would be nearly impossible to form an estimate of the proportion of

the slaves included in a number of these classes, such as the old, the

worn out, the incurably diseased, maimed and deformed, idiots, feeble

infants, incorrigible slaves, &c. More or less of this description are

to be found on all the considerable plantations, and often, many on

the same plantation; though we have no accurate data for an estimate,

the proportion cannot be less than one in twenty-five of the whole

number of slaves, which would give a total of more than _one hundred

thousand_. Of some of the remaining classes we have data for a pretty

accurate estimate.

1st. _Lunatics_.--Various estimates have been made, founded upon the

data procured by actual investigation, prosecuted under the direction

of the Legislatures of different States; but the returns have been so

imperfect and erroneous, that little reliance can be placed upon them.

The Legislature of New Hampshire recently ordered investigations to be

made in every town in the state, and the number of insane persons to

be reported. A committee of the legislature, who had the subject in

charge say, in their report--"From many towns no returns have been

received, from others the accounts are erroneous, there being cases

_known to the committee_ which escaped the notice of the 'selectmen.'

The actual number of insane persons is therefore much larger than

appears by the documents submitted to the committee." The Medical

Society of Connecticut appointed a committee of their number, composed

of some of the most eminent physicians in the state, to ascertain and

report the whole number of insane persons in that state. The committee

say, in their report, "The number of towns from which returns have

been received is seventy, and the cases of insanity which have been

noticed in them are five hundred and ten." The committee add, "fifty

more towns remain to be heard from, and if insanity should be found

equally prevalent in them, the entire number will scarcely fall short

of _one thousand_ in the state." This investigation was made in 1821,

when the population of the state was less than two hundred and eighty

thousand. If the estimate of the Medical Society be correct, the

proportion of the insane to the whole population would be about one in

two hundred and eighty. This strikes us as a large estimate, and yet a

committee of the legislature of that state in 1837, reported seven

hundred and seven insane persons in the state, who were either wholly

or in part supported as _town paupers, or by charity_. It can hardly

be supposed that more than _two-thirds_ of the insane in Connecticut

belong to families _unable to support them_. On this supposition, the

whole number would be greater than the estimate of the Medical Society

sixteen years previous, when the population was perhaps thirty

thousand less. But to avoid the possibility of an over estimate, let

us suppose the present number of insane persons in Connecticut to be

only seven hundred.

The population of the state is now probably about three hundred and

twenty thousand; according to this estimate, the proportion of the

insane to the whole population, would be one to about four hundred and

sixty. Making this the basis of our calculation, and estimating the

slaves in the United States at two millions, seven hundred thousand,

their present probable number, and we come to this result, that there

are about six thousand insane persons among the slaves of the United

States. We have no adequate data by which to judge whether the

proportion of lunatics among slaves is greater or less than among the

whites; some considerations favor the supposition that it is less. But

the dreadful physical violence to which the slaves are subjected, and

the constant sunderings of their tenderest ties, might lead us to

suppose that it would be more. The only data in our possession is the

official census of Chatham county, Georgia, for 1838, containing the

number of lunatics among the whites and the slaves.--(See the Savannah

Georgian, July 24, 1838.) According to this census, the number of

lunatics among eight thousand three hundred and seventy three whites

in the country, is only _two,_ whereas, the number among ten thousand

eight hundred and ninety-one slaves, is _fourteen_.

2d. _The Deaf and Dumb._--The proportion of deaf and dumb persons to

the other classes of the community, is about one in two thousand. This

is the testimony of the directors of the 'American Asylum for the Deaf

and Dumb,' located at Hartford, Connecticut. Making this the basis of

our estimate, there would be one thousand six hundred deaf and dumb

persons among the slaves of the United States.

3d. _The Blind._--We have before us the last United States census,

from which it appears, that in 1830, the number of blind persons in

New Hampshire was one hundred and seventeen, out of a population of

two hundred and sixty-nine thousand five hundred and thirty-three.

Adopting this as our basis, the number of blind slaves in the United

States would be nearly one thousand three hundred.

4th. _Runaways._--Of the proportion of the slaves that run away, to

those that do not, and of the proportion of the runaways that are

_taken_ to those that escape entirely, it would be difficult to make a

probable estimate. Something, however, can be done towards such an

estimate. We have before us, in the Grand Gulf (Miss.) Advertiser, for

August 2, 1838, a list of runaways that were then in the jails of the

two counties of Adams and Warren, in that State; the names, ages, &c.

of each one given; and their owners are called upon to take them away.

The number of runaways thus taken up and committed in these _two_

counties is FORTY-SIX. The whole number of _counties_ in Mississippi

is _fifty-six._ Many of them, however, are thinly populated. Now,

without making this the basis of our estimate for the whole slave

population in all the state--which would doubtless make the number

much too large--we are sure no one who has any knowledge of facts as

they are in the south, will charge upon us an over-statement when we

say, that of the present generation of slaves, probably _one in

thirty_ is of that class--i.e., has at some time, perhaps often,

runaway and been retaken; on that supposition the whole number would

be not far from NINETY THOUSAND.

5th. _Hired Slaves._--It is impossible to estimate with accuracy the

proportion which the hired slaves bear to the whole number. That it is

very large all who have resided at the south, or traveled there, with

their eyes open, well know. Some of the largest slaveholders in the

country, instead of purchasing plantations and working their slaves

themselves, hire them out to others. This practice is very common.

Rev. Horace Moulton, a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church in

Marlborough, Mass., who lived some years in Georgia, says: "A _large

proportion_ of the slave are owned by masters who keep them on purpose

to hire out."

Large numbers of slaves, especially in Mississippi, Louisiana,

Arkansas, Alabama, and Florida, are owned by _non-residents_;

thousands of them by northern capitalists, who _hire them out_. These

capitalists in many cases own large plantations, which are often

leased for a term of years with a 'stock' of slaves sufficient to work

them.

Multitudes of slaves 'belonging' to _heirs_, are hired out by their

guardians till such heirs become of age, or by the executors or

trustees of persons deceased.

That the reader may form some idea of the large number of slaves that

are hired out, we insert below a few advertisements, as a specimen of

hundreds in the newspapers of the slave states.

From the "Pensacola Gazette," May 27.

"NOTICE TO SLAVEHOLDERS. Wanted upon my contract, on the Alabama,

Florida, and Georgia Rail Road, FOUR HUNDRED BLACK LABORERS, _for

which_ a liberal price will be paid.

R. LORING, _Contractor_."

The same paper has the following, signed by an officer of the United

States.

"WANTED AT THE NAVY YARD, PENSACOLA, SIXTY LABORERS. The OWNERS to

subsist and quarter them beyond the limits of the yard. Persons having

Laborers to hire, will apply to the Commanding Officer.

W.K. LATIMER."

From the "Richmond (Va.) Enquirer," April 10, 1838.

"LABORERS WANTED.--The James River, and Kenawha Company, are in

immediate want of SEVERAL HUNDRED good laborers. Gentlemen wishing to

send negroes from the country, are assured that the very best care

shall be taken of them.

RICHARD REINS, _Agent of the James River, and Kenawha Co_."

From the "Vicksburg (Mis.) Register," Dec. 27, 1838.

"60 NEGROES, males and females, _for hire for the year_ 1839. Apply to

H. HENDREN."

From the "Georgia Messenger," Dec. 27, 1838. "NEGROES To HIRE. On the

first Tuesday next, Including CARPENTERS, BLACKSMITHS, SHOEMAKERS,

SEAMSTRESSES, COOKS, &c. &c. For information; Apply to OSSIAN

GREGORY."

From the "Alexandria (D.C.) Gazette," Dec. 30, 1837.

"THE subscriber wishes to _employ_ by the month or year, ONE HUNDRED

ABLE BODIED MEN, AND THIRTY BOYS. Persons having servants, will do

well to give him a call. PHILIP ROACH, near Alexandria."

From the "Columbia (S.C.) Telescope," May 19, 1838.

"WANTED TO HIRE, twelve or fifteen NEGRO GIRLS, from ten to fourteen

years of age. They are wanted for the term of two or three years.

E.H. & J. FISHER."

"NEGROES WANTED. The Subscriber is desirous of hiring 50 of 60 _first

rate Negro Men_. WILSON NESBITT."

From the "Norfolk (Va.) Beacon," March 21, 1838.

"LABORERS WANTED. One hundred able bodied men are wanted. The hands

will be required to be delivered in Halifax by the _owners_. Apply to

SHIELD & WALKE."

From the "Lynchburg Virginian," Dec. 13, 1838.

"40 NEGRO MEN. The subscribers wish to hire for the next year 40 NEGRO

MEN. LANGHORNE, SCRUGGS & COOK."

"HIRING of NEGROES. On Saturday, the 29th day of December, 1838, at

Mrs. Tayloe's tavern, in Amherst county, there will be _hired_ thirty

or forty valuable Negroes.

In addition to the above, I have for _hire_, 20 men, women, boys, and

girls--several of them excellent house servants. MAURICE H. GARLAND."

From the "Savannah Georgian," Feb. 5, 1838.

"WANTED TO HIRE, ONE HUNDRED prime negroes, by the year. J.V.

REDDEN."

From the "North Carolina Standard," Feb. 31, 1838.

"NEGROES WANTED.--W. & A. STITH, will give twelve dollars per month

for FIFTY strong Negro fellows, to commence work immediately; and for

FIFTY more on the first day of February, and for FIFTY on the first

day of March."

From the "Lexington (Ky.) Reporter," Dec. 26, 1838.

"WILL BE HIRED, for one year; on the first day of January, 1839, on

the farm of the late Mrs. Meredith, a number of valuable NEGROES.

R.S. TODD, Sheriff of Fayette Co. And Curator for James and Elizabeth

Breckenridge."

"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_."

The following _nine_ advertisements were published in one column of

the "Winchester Virginian," Dec. 20, 1838.

"NEGRO HIRINGS.

"WILL be offered for hire, at Captain Long's Hotel, a number of

SLAVES--men, women, boys and girls--belonging to the orphans of George

Ash, deceased. RICHARD W. BARTON." _Guardian_.

"WILL be offered for hire, at my Hotel, a number of SLAVES, consisting

of men, women, boys and girls. JOSEPH LONG. _Exr. of Edmund

Shackleford, dec'd_."

"WILL be offered for hire, for the ensuing year, at Capt. Long's

Hotel, a number of SLAVES. MOSES R. RICHARDS."

"WILL be offered for hire, the slaves belonging to the estate of James

Bowen, deceased, consisting of men, and women, boys and girls. GILES

COOK. _One of the Exrs. of James Bowen dec'd_."

"THE _hiring_ at Millwood will take place on Friday, the 28th day of

December, 1838. BURWELL."

"N.B. We are desired to say that other valuable NEGROES will also be

_hired_ at Millwood on the same day, besides those offered by Mr. B."

"The SLAVES of the late John Jolliffe, about twenty in number, and of

all ages and both sexes, will be offered for hire at Cain's Depot.

DAVID W. BARTON. _Administrator_."

"I WILL hire at public hiring before the tavern door of Dr. Lacy,

about 30 NEGROES, consisting of men, and women. JAMES R. RICHARDS."

"WILL be hired, at Carter's Tavern, on 31st of December, a number of

NEGROES. JOHN J.H. GUNNELL."

"NEGROES FOR HIRE, (PRIVATELY.) About twelve servants, consisting of

men, women, boys, and girls, for hire privately. Apply to the

subscriber at Col. Smith's in Battletown. JOHN W. OWEN."

A volume might easily be filled with advertisements like the

preceding, showing conclusively that _hired_ slaves must be a large

proportion of the whole number. The actual proportion has been

variously estimated, at 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/2, &c. if we adopt the last

as our basis, it will make the number of hired slaves, in the United

States, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND!

6th. _Slaves under overseers whose wages are a part of the

crop_.--That this is a common usage; appears from the following

testimony. The late Hon. John Taylor, of Caroline Co. Virginia, one of

the largest slaveholders in the state, President of the State

Agricultural Society, and three times elected to the Senate of the

United States, says, in his "Agricultural Essays," No. 15. P. 57,

"This necessary class of men, (overseers,) are bribed by

agriculturalists, not to improve, but to impoverish their land, _by a

share of the crop for one year_.... The _greatest_ annual crop, and

not the most judicious culture, advances his interest, and establishes

his character; and the fees of these land-doctors, are much higher for

killing than for curing.... The most which the land can yield, and

seldom or never improvement with a view to future profit, is a point

of common consent, and mutual need between the agriculturist and his

overseer.... Must the practice of hiring a man for one year, by a

share of the crop, to lay out all his skill and industry in killing

land, and as little as possible in improving it, be kept up to

commemorate the pious leaning of man to his primitive state of

ignorance and barbarity? _Unless this is abolished_, the attempt to

fertilize our lands is needless."

Philemon Bliss, Esq, of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida, in 1834-5,

says,

"It is common for owners of plantations and slaves, to hire overseers

to take charge of them, while they themselves reside at a distance.

_Their wages depend principally upon the amount of labor which they

can exact from the slave_. The term "good overseer," signifies one who

can make the greatest amount of the staple, cotton for instance, from

a given number of hands, besides raising sufficient provisions for

their consumption. He has no interest in the life of the slave. Hence

the fact, so notorious at the south, that negroes are driven harder

and fare worse under overseers than under their owners."

William Ladd, Esq. of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida,

speaking, in a recent letter of the system of labor adopted there,

says; "The compensation of the overseers _was a certain portion of the

crop_."

Rev. Phineas Smith, of Centreville, Allegany Co. N.Y. who has

recently returned from a four years' residence, in the Southern slave

states and Texas, says,

"The mode in which _many_ plantations are managed, is calculated and

_designed_, as an inducement to the slave driver, to lay upon the

slave the _greatest possible burden, the overseer being entitled by

contract, to a certain share of the crop_."

We leave the reader to form his own opinion, as to the proportion of

slaves under overseers, whose wages are in proportion to the crop,

raised by them. We have little doubt that we shall escape the charge

of wishing to make out a "strong case" when we put the proportion at

_one-eighth_ of the whole number of slaves, which would be _three

hundred and fifty thousand_.

Without drawing out upon the page a sum in addition for the reader to

"run up," it is easily seen that the slaves in the preceding classes

amount to more than ELEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND, exclusive of the deaf and

dumb, and the blind, some of whom, especially the former, might be

profitable to their "owners";

Now it is plainly for the interest of the "owners" of these slaves, or

of those who have the charge of them, to _treat than cruelly_, to

overwork, under-feed, half-clothe, half-shelter, poison, or kill

outright, the aged, the broken down, the incurably diseased, idiots,

feeble infants, most of the blind, some deaf and dumb, &c. It is

besides a part of the slave-holder's creed, that it is _for his

interest_ to treat with terrible severity, all runaways and the

incorrigibly stubborn, thievish, lazy, &c.; also for those who hire

slaves, to overwork them; also for overseers to overwork the slaves

under them, when their own wages are increased by it.

We have thus shown that it would be "_for the interest_," of masters

and overseers to treat with _habitual_ cruelty _more than one million_

of the slaves in the United States. But this is not all; as we have

said already, it is for the interest of overseers generally, whether

their wages are proportioned to the crop or not, to overwork the

slaves; we need not repeat the reasons.

Neither is it necessary to re-state the arguments, going to show that

it is for the interest of slaveholders, who cultivate the great

southern staples, especially cotton, and the sugarcane, to overwork

periodically _all_ their slaves, and _habitually_ the majority of

them, when the demand for those staples creates high prices, as has

been the case with cotton for many years, with little exception.

Instead of entering into a labored estimate to get at the proportion

of the slaves, affected by the operation of these and the other causes

enumerated, we may say, that they operate _directly_ on the "field

hands," employed in raising the southern staples, and indirectly upon

all classes of the slaves.

Finally, the conclude this head by turning the objector's negative

proposition into an affirmative one, and state formally what has been

already proved.

_It is for the interest of shareholders, upon their own principles,

and by their own showing, TO TREAT CRUELLY the great body of their

slaves._

Objection VI.--THE FACT THAT THE SLAVES MULTIPLY SO RAPIDLY PROVES

THAT THEY ARE NOT INHUMANELY TREATED, BUT ARE IN A COMFORTABLE

CONDITION

To this we reply in brief, 1st. It has been already shown under a

previous head, that, in considerable sections of the slave states,

especially in the South West, the births among slaves are fewer than

the deaths, which would exhibit a fearful decrease of the slave

population in those sections, if the deficiency were not made up by

the slave trade from the upper country.

2d. The fact that all children born of slave _mothers_, whether their

fathers are whites or free colored persons, are included in the census

with the slaves, and further that all children born of white mothers,

whose fathers are mulattos or blacks, are also included in the census

with colored persons and almost invariably with _slaves_, shows that

it is impossible to ascertain with any accuracy, _what is the actual

increase of the slaves alone._

3d. The fact that thousands of slaves, generally in the prime of life,

are annually smuggled into the United States from Africa, Cuba, and

elsewhere, makes it manifest that all inferences drawn from the

increase of the slave population, which do not make large deductions,

for constant importations, must be fallacious. Mr. Middleton of South

Carolina, in a speech in Congress in 1819, declared that "THIRTEEN

THOUSAND AFRICANS ARE ANNUALLY SMUGGLED INTO THE SOUTHERN STATES." Mr.

Mercer of Virginia, in a speech in Congress about the same time

declared that "_Cargoes_," of African slaves were smuggled into the

South to a deplorable extent.

Mr. Wright, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, estimated the number

annually at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau, in her recent work,

(Society in America,) informs us that a large slaveholder in

Louisiana, assured her in 1835, that the annual importation of native

Africans was from thirteen to fifteen thousand.

The President of the United States, in his message to Congress,

December, 1837, says, "The large force under Commodore Dallas, (on the

West India station,) has been most actively and efficiently employed

in protecting our commerce, IN PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES,"

&c. &c.

The New Orleans Courier of 15th February, 1839, has these remarks:

"It is believed that African negroes have been _repeatedly_ introduced

into the United States. The number and the proximity of the Florida

ports to the island of Cuba, make it no difficult matter; nor is our

extended frontier on the Sabine and Red rivers, at all unfavorable to

the smuggler. Human laws have, in all countries and ages, been

violated whenever the inducements to do so afforded hopes of great

profit.

"The United States' law against the importation of Africans, _could it

be strictly enforced_, might in a few years give the sugar and cotton

planters of Texas advantage over those of this state; as it would, we

apprehend, enable the former, under a stable government, to furnish

cotton and sugar at a lower price than we can do. When giving

publicity to such reflections as the subject seems to suggest, we

protest against being considered advocates for any violation of the

laws of our country. Every good citizen must respect those laws,

notwithstanding we may deem them likely to be evaded by men less

scrupulous."

That both the south and north swarm with men 'less scrupulous,' every

one knows.

The Norfolk (Va.) Beacon, of June 8, 1837, has the following:

"_Slave Trade.--Eight African negroes_ have been taken into custody,

at Apalachicola, by the U.S. Deputy Marshal, alleged to have been

imported from Cuba, on board the schooner Emperor, Captain Cox.

Indictments for piracy, under the acts for the suppression of the

slave trade, have been found against Captain Cox, and other parties

implicated. The negroes were bought in Cuba by a Frenchman named

Malherbe, formerly a resident of Tallahassee, who was drowned soon

after the arrival of the schooner."

The following testimony of Rev. Horace Moulton, now a minister of the

Methodist Episcopal Church, in Marlborough, Mass., who resided some

years in Georgia, reveals some of the secrets of the slave-smugglers,

and the connivance of the Georgia authorities at their doings. It is

contained in a letter dated February 24, 1839.

"The foreign slave-trade was carried on to some considerable extent

when I was at the south, notwithstanding a law had been made some ten

years previous to this, making this traffic piracy on the high seas. I

was somewhat acquainted with the secrets of this traffic, and, I

suppose, I might have engaged in it, had I so desired. Were you to

visit all the plantations in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and

Mississippi, I think you would be convinced that the horrors of the

traffic in human flesh have not yet ceased. I was _surprised to find

so many that could not speak English among the slaves,_ until the

mystery was explained. This was done, when I learned that

slave-cargoes were landed on the coast of Florida, not a thousand

miles from St. Augustine. They could, and can still, in my opinion, be

landed as safely on this coast as in any port of this continent. You

can imagine for yourself how easy it was to carry on the traffic

between this place and the West Indies. When landed on the coast of

Florida, it is an easy matter to distribute them throughout the more

southern states. The law which makes it piracy to traffic in the

foreign slave trade is a dead letter; and I doubt not it has been so

in the more southern states ever since it was enacted. For you can

perceive at once, that interested men, who believe the colored man is so

much better off here than he possibly can be in Africa, will not

hesitate to kidnap the blacks whenever an opportunity presents itself.

I will notice one fact that came under my own observation, which will

convince you that the horrors of the foreign slave-trade have not yet

ceased among our southern gentry. It is as follows. A slave ship,

which I have reason to believe was employed by southern men, came near

the port of Savannah with about FIVE HUNDRED SLAVES, from Guinea and

Congo. It was said that the ship was driven there by contrary winds;

and the crew, pretending to be short of provisions, run the ship into

a by place, near the shore, between Tybee Light and Darien, to recruit

their stores. Well, as Providence would have it, the revenue cutter,

at that time taking a trip along the coast, fell in with this slave

ship, took her as a prize, and brought her up into the port of

Savannah. The cargo of human chattels was unloaded, and the captives

were placed in an old barracks, in the fort of Savannah, under the

protection of the city authorities, they pretending that they should

return them all to their native country again, as soon as a convenient

opportunity presented itself. The ship's crew of course were arrested,

and confined in jail. Now for the sequel of this history. About one

third part of the negroes died in a few weeks after they were landed,

in seasoning, so called, or in becoming acclimated--or, as I should

think, a distemper broke out among them, and they died like the

Israelites when smitten with the plague. Those who did not die in

seasoning, must be hired out a little while, to be sure, as the city

authorities could not afford to keep them on expense doing nothing. As

it happened, the man in whose employ I was when the cargo of human

beings arrived, hired some twenty or thirty of them, and put them

under my care. They continued with me until the sickly season drove me

off to the north. I soon returned, but could not hear a word about the

crew of pirates. They had something like a mock trial, as I should

think, for no one, as I ever learned, was condemned, fined, or

censured. But where were the poor captives, who were going to be

returned to Africa by the city authorities, as soon as they could make

it convenient? Oh, forsooth, those of whom I spoke, being under my

care, were tugging away for the same man; the remainder were scattered

about among different planters. When I returned to the north again,

the next year, the city authorities had not, down to that time; made

it convenient to return these poor victims. The fact is, they belonged

there; and, in my opinion, they were designed to be landed near by the

place where the revenue cutter seized them. Probably those very

planters for whom they were originally designed received them; and

still there was a pretence kept up that they would be returned to

Africa. This must have been done, that the consciences of those might

be quieted, who were looking for justice to be administered to these

poor captives. It is easy for a company of slaveholders, who desire to

traffic in human flesh, to fit out a vessel, under Spanish colors, and

then go prowling about the African coast for the victims of their

lusts. If all the facts with relation to the African slave-trade, now

secretly carried on at the south, could be disclosed, the people of

the free states would be filled with amazement."

It is plain, from the nature of this trade, and the circumstances

under which it is carried on, that the number of slaves imported would

be likely to be estimated far _below_ the truth. There can be little

doubt that the estimate of Mr. Wright, of Maryland, (fifteen thousand

annually,) is some thousands too small. But even according to his

estimate, the African slave-trade adds ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND

SLAVES TO EACH UNITED STATES' CENSUS. These are in the prime of life,

and their children would swell the slave population many thousands

annually--thus making a great addition to each census.

4. It is a notorious fact, that large numbers of free colored persons

are kidnapped every year in the free states, taken to the south, and

sold as slaves.

Hon. GEORGE M. STROUD, Judge of the Criminal Court of Philadelphia, in

his sketch of the slave laws, speaking of the kidnapping of free

colored persons in the northern states, says--

"Remote as is the city of Philadelphia from those slaveholding states

in which the introduction of slaves from places within the territory

of the United States is freely permitted, and where also the market is

tempting, _it has been ascertained,_ that MORE THAN THIRTY FREE

COLORED PERSONS, MOSTLY CHILDREN, HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED HERE, AND

CARRIED AWAY, WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS. Five of these, through the

kind interposition of several humane gentlemen, have been restored to

their friends, though not without _great expense and difficulty_; the

others _are still retained in bondage_, and if rescued at all, it must

be by sending white witnesses a journey of more than a thousand miles.

The costs attendant upon lawsuits, under such circumstances, will

probably fall but little short of the estimated value, as slaves, of

the individuals kidnapped."

The following is an extract from Mrs. CHILD's Appeal, pp. 64-6.

"I know the names of four colored citizens of Massachusetts, who went

to Georgia on board a vessel, were seized under the laws of that

state, and sold as slaves. They have sent the most earnest

exhortations to their families and friends, to do something for their

relief; but the attendant expenses require more money than the friends

of negroes are apt to have, and the poor fellows, as yet, remain

unassisted.

"A New York paper, of November, 1829, contains the following caution.

_"Beware of Kidnappers!_--It is well understood, that there is at

present in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their

vocation, of stealing colored children for the southern market. It is

believed that three or four have been stolen within as many days.

There are suspicions of a foul nature connected with some who serve

the police in subordinate capacities. It is hinted that there may be

those in some authority, not altogether ignorant of these diabolical

practices. Let the public be on their guard! It is still fresh in the

memories of all, that a cargo, or rather drove of negroes, was made up

from this city and Philadelphia, about the time that the emancipation

of all the negroes in this state took place, under our present

constitution, and were taken through Virginia, the Carolinas, and

Tennessee, and disposed of in the state of Mississippi. Some of those

who were taken from Philadelphia were persons of intelligence; and

after they had been driven through the country in chains, and disposed

of by sale on the Mississippi, wrote back to their friends, and were

rescued from bondage. The persons who were guilty of this abominable

transaction are known, and now reside in North Carolina. They may very

probably be engaged in similar enterprizes at the present time--at

least there is reason to believe, that the system of kidnapping free

persons of color from the northern cities, has been carried on more

extensively than the public arc generally aware of."

GEORGE BRADBURN, Esq. of Nantucket, Mass. a member of the Legislature

of that state, at its last session, made a report to that body, March

6, 1839, 'On the deliverance of citizens liable to be sold as slaves.'

That report contains the following facts and testimony.

"The following facts are a few out of a VAST MULTITUDE, to which the

attention of the undersigned has been directed.

"On the 27th of February last, the undersigned had an interview with

the Rev. Samuel Snowden, a respectable and intelligent clergyman of

the city of Boston. This gentleman stated, and he is now ready to make

oath, that during the last six years, he has himself, by the aid of

various benevolent individuals, procured the deliverance from jail of

six citizens of Massachusetts, who had been, arrested and imprisoned

as runaway slaves, and who, but for his timely interposition, would

have been sold into perpetual bondage. The names and the places of

imprisonment of those persons, as stated by Mr. S. were as follows:

"James Hight, imprisoned at Mobile; William Adams, at Norfolk; William

Holmes, also at Norfolk; James Oxford, at Wilmington; James Smith, at

Baton Rouge; John Tidd, at New Orleans.

"In 1836, Mary Smith, a native of this state, returning from New

Orleans, whither she had been in the capacity of a servant, was cast

upon the shores of North Carolina. She was there seized and sold as a

slave. Information of the fact reached her friends at Boston. Those

friends made an effort to obtain her liberation. They invoked the

assistance of the Governor of this Commonwealth. A correspondence

ensued between His Excellency and the Governor of North Carolina:

copies of which were offered for the inspection of your committee.

Soon afterwards, by permission of the authorities of North Carolina,

'Mary Smith' returned to Boston. But it turned out, that this was not

_the_ Mary Smith, whom our worthy Governor, and other excellent

individuals of Boston, had taken so unwearied pains to redeem from

slavery. It was another woman, of the same name, who was also a native

of Massachusetts, and had been seized in North Carolina as a runaway

slave. The Mary Smith has not yet been heard of. If alive, she is now,

in all probability, wearing the chains of slavery.

"About a year and a half since, several citizens of different free

states were rescued from slavery, at New Orleans, by the direct

personal efforts of an acquaintance of the undersigned. The benevolent

individual alluded to is Jacob Barker, Esq. a name not unknown to the

commercial world. Mr. Barker is a resident of New Orleans. A statement

of the cases in reference is contained in a letter addressed by him to

the Hon. Samuel H. Jenks, of Nantucket."

The letter of Mr. Barker, referred to in this report to the

Legislature of Massachusetts, bears date August 19, 1837. The

following are extracts from it.

"A free man, belonging to Baltimore, by the name of Ephraim Larkin,

who came here cook of the William Tell, was arrested and thrown into

prison a few weeks since, and sent in chains to work on the road. I

heard of it, and with difficulty found him; and after the most

diligent and active exertions, got him released--in effecting which, I

traveled in the heat of the day, thermometer ranging in the shade from

94 to 100, more than twenty times to and from prison, the place of his

labor, and the different courts, a distance of near three miles from

my residence; and after I had established his freedom, had to pay for

his arrest, maintenance, and the advertising him as a runaway slave,

$29.89, as per copy of bill herewith--the allowance for work not

equalling the expenses, the amount augments with every day of

confinement.

"In pursuing the cook of the William Tell, I found three other free

men, confined in the same prison; one belonged also to Baltimore, by

the name of Leaven Dogerty: he was also released, on my paying $28

expenses; one was a descendant of the Indians who once inhabited

Nantucket--his name is Eral Lonnon. Lonnon had been six weeks in

prison; he was released without difficulty, on my paying $20.38

expenses--and no one seemed to know why he had been confined or

arrested, as the law does not presume persons of mixed blood to be

slaves. But for the others, I had great difficulty in procuring what

was considered competent witnesses to prove them free. No complaint of

improper conduct had been made against either of them. At one time,

the Recorder said the witness must be white; at another, that one

respectable witness was insufficient; at another, that a person who

had been (improperly) confined and released, was not a competent

witness, &c. &c. Lonnon has been employed in the South Sea fishery

from Nantucket and New Bedford, nearly all his life; has sailed on

those voyages in the ships Eagle, Maryland, Gideon, Triton, and

Samuel. He was born at Marshpee, Plymouth (Barnstable) county, Mass.

and prefers to encounter the leviathan of the deep, rather than the

turnkeys of New Orleans.

"The other was born in St. Johns, Nova Scotia, and bears the name of

William Smith, a seaman by profession.

"Immediately after these men were released, two others were arrested.

They attempted to escape, and being pursued, ran for the river, in the

vain hope of being able to swim across the Mississippi, a distance of

a mile, with a current of four knots. One soon gave out, and made for

a boat which had been despatched for their recovery, and was saved;

the other being a better swimmer, continued on until much exhausted,

then also made for the boat--it was too late; he sank before the boat

could reach him, and was drowned. They claimed to be freemen.

"On Sunday last I was called to the prison of the Municipality in

which I reside, to serve on an inquest on the body of a drowned man.

There I saw one other free man confined, by the name of Henry Tier, a

yellow man, born in New York, and formerly in my employ. He had been

confined as a supposed runaway, near six months, without a particle of

testimony; although from his color, the laws of Louisiana presume him

to be free. I applied immediately for his release, which was promptly

granted. At first, expenses similar to those exacted in the third

Municipality were required; but on my demonstrating to the recorder

that the law imposed no such burden on free men, he was released

without any charge whatever. How free men can obtain satisfaction for

having been thus wrongfully imprisoned, and made to work in chains on

the highway, is not for me to decide. I apprehend no satisfaction can

be had without more active friends, willing to espouse their cause,

than can be found in this quarter. Therefore I repeat, that no person

of color should come here without a certificate of freedom from the

governor of the state to which he belongs.

"Very respectfully, your assured friend, Jacob Barker."

"N.B.--Since writing the preceding, I have procured the release of

another free man from the prison of the third Municipality, on the

payment of $39.65, as per bill, copy herewith. His name is William

Lockman--he was born in New Jersey, of free parents, and resides at

Philadelphia. A greater sum was required which was reduced by the

allowance of his maintenance (written _labor_,) while at work on the

road, which the law requires the Municipality to pay; but it had not

before been so expounded in the third Municipality. I hope to get it

back in the case of the other three. The allowance for labor, in

addition to their maintenance, is twenty-five cents per day; but they

require those illiterate men to advance the whole before they can

leave the prison, and then to take a certificate for their labor, and

go for it to another department--to collect which, is ten times more

trouble than the money when received is worth. While these free men,

without having committed any fault, were compelled to work in chains,

on the roads, in the burning sun, for 25 cents per day, and pay in

advance 18 3-4 cents per day for maintenance, doctor's, and other

bills, and not able to work half their time, I paid others, working on

ship-board, in sight, two dollars per day. J.B."

The preceding letter of Mr. Barker, furnishes grounds for the belief,

that _hundreds_, if not _thousands_ of free colored persons, from the

different states of this Union, both slave and free from the West

Indies, South America, Mexico, and the British possessions in North

America, and from other parts of the world, are reduced to slavery

_every year_ in our slave states. If a single individual, in the

course of a few days, _accidentally_ discovered _six_ colored free

men, working in irons, and soon to be sold as slaves, in a _single_

southern city, is it not fair to infer, that in all the slave states,

there must be _multitudes_ of such persons, now in slavery, and that

this number is rapidly increasing, by ceaseless accessions?

The letter of Mr. Barker is valuable, also, as a graphic delineation

of the 'public opinion' of the south. The great difficulty with which

the release of these free men was procured, notwithstanding the

personal efforts of Mr. Jacob Barker, who is a gentleman of influence,

and has, we believe, been an alderman of New Orleans, reveals a

'public opinion,' insensible as adamant to the liberty of colored men.

It would be easy to fill scores of pages with details similar to the

preceding. We have furnished enough, however, to show, that, in all

probability, _each_ United States' census of the _slave_ population,

is increased by the addition to it of _thousands_ of free colored

persons, kidnapped and sold as slaves.

5th. To argue that the rapid multiplication of any class in the

community, is proof that such a class is well-clothed, well-housed,

abundantly fed, and very _comfortable_, is as absurd as to argue that

those who have _few children_, must of course, be ill-clothed,

ill-housed, badly lodged, overworked, ill-fed, &c. &c. True,

privations and inflictions may be carried to such an extent as to

occasion a fearful diminishment of population. That was the case

generally with the slave population in the West Indies, and, as has

been shown, is true of certain portions of the southern states. But

the fact that such an effect is _not_ produced, does not prove that

the slaves do not experience great privations and severe inflictions.

They may suffer much hardship, and great cruelties, without

experiencing so great a derangement of the vital functions as to

prevent child-bearing. The Israelites multiplied with astonishing

rapidity, under the task-masters and burdens of Egypt. Does this

falsify the declarations of Scripture, that 'they sighed by reason of

their bondage,' and that the Egyptians 'made them serve _with rigor_,'

and made 'their lives bitter with _hard bondage_.' 'I have seen,' said

God, 'their _afflictions_. I have beard their _groanings_,' &c. The

history of the human race shows, that great _privations and much

suffering_ may be experienced, without materially checking the rapid

increase of population.

Besides, if we should give to the objection all it claims, it would

merely prove, that the female slaves, or rather a portion of them, are

in a comfortable condition; and that, so far as the absolute

necessities of life are concerned, the females of _child-bearing_ age,

in Delaware, Maryland, northern, western, and middle Virginia, the

upper parts of Kentucky and Missouri, and among the mountains of east

Tennessee and western North Carolina, are in general tolerably well

supplied. The same remark, with some qualifications, may be made of

the slaves generally, in those parts of the country where the people

are slaveholders, mainly, that they may enjoy the privilege and profit

of being _slave-breeders_.

OBJECTION VIII.--'PUBLIC OPINION IS A PROTECTION TO THE SLAVE.'

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!