Chapter 7

COMPARATIVE VIEW OF SLAVERY, IN DIFFERENT AGES AND NATIONS.

"E'en from my tongue some heartfelt truths may fall; And outraged Nature claims the care of all. These wrongs in _any_ place would force a tear; But call for stronger, deeper feeling _here_."

"Oh, sons of freedom! equalize your laws-- Be all consistent--plead the negro's cause-- Then all the nations in your code may see, That, black or white, Americans are free."

Between ancient and modern slavery there is this remarkable distinction--the former originated in motives of humanity; the latter is dictated solely by avarice. The ancients made slaves of captives taken in war, as an amelioration of the original custom of indiscriminate slaughter; the moderns attack defenceless people, without any provocation, and steal them, for the express purpose of making them slaves.

Modern slavery, indeed, in all its particulars, is more odious than the ancient; and it is worthy of remark that the condition of slaves has always been worse just in proportion to the freedom enjoyed by their masters. In Greece, none were so proud of liberty as the Spartans; and they were a proverb among the neighboring States for their severity to slaves. The slave code of the Roman republic was rigid and tyrannical in the extreme; and cruelties became so common and excessive, that the emperors, in the latter days of Roman power, were obliged to enact laws to restrain them. In the modern world, England and America are the most conspicuous for enlightened views of freedom, and bold vindication of the equal rights of man; yet in these two countries slave laws have been framed as bad as they were in Pagan, iron-hearted Rome; and the customs are in some respects more oppressive;--_modern_ slavery unquestionably wears its very worst aspect in the Colonies of England and the United States of North America. I hardly know how to decide their respective claims. My countrymen are fond of pre-eminence, and I am afraid they deserve it here--especially if we throw into the scale their loud boasts of superiority over all the rest of the world in civil and religious freedom. The slave codes of the United States and of the British West Indies were originally almost precisely the same; but _their_ laws have been growing milder and milder, while _ours_ have increased in severity. The British have the advantage of us in this respect--they long ago dared to describe the monster as it is; and they are now grappling with it, with the overwhelming strength of a great nation's concentrated energies.--The Dutch, those sturdy old friends of liberty, and the French, who have been stark mad for freedom, rank next for the severity of their slave laws and customs. The Spanish and Portuguese are milder than either.

I will give a brief view of some of our own laws on this subject; for the correctness of which, I refer the reader to Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws of the United States of America. In the first place, we will inquire upon what ground the negro slaves in this country are claimed as property. Most of them are the descendants of persons kidnapped on the coast of Africa, and brought here while we were British Colonies; and as the slave-trade was openly sanctioned more than twenty years after our acknowledged independence, in 1783, and as the traffic is still carried on by smugglers, there are, no doubt, thousands of slaves, now living in the United States, who are actually stolen from Africa.[J]

[Footnote J: In the new slave States, there are a great many negroes, who can speak no other language than some of the numerous African dialects.]

A provincial law of Maryland enacted that any white woman who married a negro slave should serve his master during her husband's lifetime, and that all their children should be slaves. This law was not repealed until the end of eighteen years, and it then continued in full force with regard to those who had contracted such marriages in the intermediate time; therefore the descendants of white women so situated may be slaves unto the present day. The doctrine of the common law is that the offspring shall follow the condition of the _father_; but slave law (with the above temporary exception) reverses the common law, and provides that children shall follow the condition of the _mother_. Hence mulattoes and their descendants are held in perpetual bondage, though the _father_ is a free white man. "Any person whose _maternal_ ancestor, even in the _remotest_ degree of distance, can be shown to have been a negro, Indian, mulatto, or a mestizo, _not_ free at the time this law was introduced, although the _paternal_ ancestor at each successive generation may have been a _white free_ man, is declared to be the subject of perpetual slavery." Even the code of Jamaica, is on this head, more liberal than ours; by an express law, slavery ceases at the _fourth_ degree of distance from a negro ancestor: and in the other British West Indies, the established custom is such, that quadroons or mestizoes (as they call the second and third degrees) are rarely seen in a state of slavery. Here, neither law nor public opinion favors the mulatto descendants of free white men. This furnishes a convenient game to the slaveholder--it enables him to fill his purse by means of his own vices;--the right to sell one half of his children provides a fortune for the remainder.--Had the maxim of the common law been allowed,--i. e. that the offspring follows the condition of the _father_,--the mulattoes, almost without exception, would have been free, and thus the prodigious and alarming increase of our slave population might have been prevented. The great augmentation of the servile class in the Southern States, compared with the West India colonies, has been thought to indicate a much milder form of slavery; but there are other causes, which tend to produce the result. There are much fewer white men in the British West Indies than in our slave States; hence the increase of the _mulatto_ population is less rapid. Here the descendants of a colored mother _never_ become free; in the West Indies, they cease to be slaves in the _fourth generation_, at farthest; and their posterity increase the _free_ colored class, instead of adding countless links to the chain of bondage.

The manufacture of sugar is extremely toilsome, and when driven hard, occasions a great waste of negro life; this circumstance, together with the tropical climate of the West Indies, furnish additional reasons for the disproportionate increase of slaves between those islands and our own country, where a comparatively small quantity of sugar is cultivated.

It may excite surprise, that _Indians_ and their offspring are comprised in the doom of perpetual slavery; yet not only is _incidental_ mention of them as slaves to be met with in the laws of most of the States of our confederacy, but in one, at least, _direct legislation_ may be cited to sanction their enslavement. In Virginia, an act was passed, in 1679, declaring that "for _the better encouragement of soldiers_, whatever Indian prisoners were taken in a war, in which the colony was then engaged, should be _free purchase_ to the soldiers taking them;" and in 1682, it was decreed that "all servants brought into Virginia, by sea or land, not being _Christians_, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes, or Indians, (except Turks and Moors in amity with Great Britain) and all Indians, which should thereafter be _sold by neighboring Indians_, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, _should be slaves to all intents and purposes_." These laws ceased in 1691; but the descendants of all Indians sold in the intermediate time are now among slaves.

In order to show the true aspect of slavery among us, I will state distinct propositions, each supported by the evidence of actually existing laws.

1. _Slavery is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants, to the latest posterity._

2. _The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, and the time allowed for rest, are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the master's discretion._

3. _The slave being considered a personal chattel, may be sold, or pledged, or leased, at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts, or taxes, either of a living, or a deceased master. Sold at auction, "either individually, or in lots to suit the purchaser," he may remain with his family, or be separated from them for ever._

4. _Slaves can make no contracts, and have no legal right to any property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings, and the legacies of friends belong, in point of law, to their masters._

5. _Neither a slave, nor free colored person, can be a witness against any white or free man, in a court of justice, however atrocious may have been the crimes they have seen him commit: but they may give testimony against a fellow-slave, or free colored man, even in cases affecting life._

6. _The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without trial--without any means of legal redress,--whether his offence be real, or imaginary: and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any person, or persons, he may choose to appoint._

7. _The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under any circumstances: his only safety consists in the fact that his owner may bring suit, and recover, the price of his body, in case his life is taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor._

8. _Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for their personal safety._

9. _The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations._

10. _The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the master is willing to enfranchise them._

11. _The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious instruction and consolation._

12. _The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of the lowest ignorance._

13. _There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right. What is a trifling fault in the white man, is considered highly criminal in the slave; the same offences which cost a white man a few dollars only, are punished in the negro with death._

14. _The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color._

PROPOSITION 1.--_Slavery hereditary and perpetual._

In Maryland the following act was passed in 1715, and is still in force: "All negroes and other slaves, already imported, or hereafter to be imported into this province, and all children now born, or hereafter to be born, of such negroes and slaves, shall be slaves during their natural lives." The law of South Carolina is, "All negroes, _Indians_, (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, and mestizoes, who are _now_ free, excepted,) mulattoes or mestizoes, who now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue born, or to be born, shall be and remain for ever hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of _the mother_." Laws similar exist in Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In consequence of these laws, people so nearly white as not to be distinguished from Europeans, may be, and have been, legally claimed as slaves.

PROP. 2.--_Labor compulsory and uncompensated, &c._

In most of the slave States the law is silent on this subject; but that it is the established custom is proved by laws restraining the excessive abuse of this power, in some of the States. Thus in one State there is a fine of ten shillings, in another of two dollars, for making slaves labor on Sunday, unless it be in works of absolute necessity, or the necessary occasions of the family. There is likewise a law which provides that "any master, who withholds proper sustenance, or clothing, from his slaves, or overworks them, so as to injure their health, shall upon _sufficient information_ [here lies the rub] being laid before the grand jury, be by said jury presented; whereupon it shall be the duty of the attorney, or solicitor-general, to prosecute said owners, who, on conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine, or be imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court."

The negro act of South Carolina contains the following language: "Whereas many owners of slaves, and _others_, who have the care, management, and overseeing of slaves, _do confine them so closely to hard labor, that they have not sufficient time for natural rest_; be it therefore enacted, that if any owner of slaves, or others having the care, &c., shall put such slaves to labor more than _fifteen_ hours in twenty-four, from the twenty-fifth of March to the twenty-fifth of September; or more than _fourteen_ hours in twenty-four hours, from the twenty-fifth of September to the twenty-fifth of March, any such person shall forfeit a sum of money not exceeding twenty pounds, nor under five pounds, current money, for every time he, she, or they, shall offend therein, at the discretion of the justice before whom complaint shall be made."

In Louisiana it is enacted, that "the slaves shall be allowed half an hour for breakfast, during the whole year; from the first of May to the first of November, they shall be allowed two hours for dinner; and from the first of November to the first of May, one hour and a half for dinner: provided, however, that the owners, who will themselves take the trouble of having the meals of their slaves prepared, be, and they are hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour a day, the time fixed for their rest."

All these laws, _apparently_ for the protection of the slave, are rendered perfectly null and void, by the fact, that the testimony of a negro or mulatto is _never_ taken against a white man. If a slave be found toiling in the field on the Sabbath, who can _prove_ that his master commanded him to do it?

The law of Louisiana stipulates that a slave shall have _one_ linen shirt,[K] and a pair of pantaloons for the summer, and _one_ linen shirt and a woollen great-coat and pantaloons for the winter; and for food, one pint of salt, and a barrel of Indian corn, rice, or beans, every month. In North Carolina, the law decides that a quart of corn per day is sufficient. But, if the slave does not receive this poor allowance, who can _prove_ the fact. The withholding of proper sustenance is absolutely incapable of proof, unless the evidence of the sufferer himself be allowed; and the law, as if determined to obstruct the administration of justice, permits the master to exculpate himself by an oath that the charges against him are false. Clothing may, indeed, be ascertained by _inspection_; but who is likely to involve himself in quarrels with a white master because a poor negro receives a few rags less than the law provides? I apprehend that a person notorious for such gratuitous acts of kindness, would have little peace or safety, in any slaveholding country.

[Footnote K: This shirt is usually made of a coarse kind of bagging.]

If a negro be compelled to toil night and day, (as it is said they sometimes are,[L] at the season of sugar-making) who is to _prove_ that he works more than his fourteen or fifteen hours? No slave can be a witness for himself, or for his fellow-slaves; and should a white man happen to know the fact, there are ninety-nine chances out of a hundred, that he will deem it prudent to be silent. And here I would remark that even in the island of Jamaica, where the laws have given a most shocking license to cruelty,--even in Jamaica, the slave is compelled to work but _ten_ hours a day, beside having many holidays allowed him. In Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey, the _convicts_ condemned to hard labor in the penitentiaries, are required by law to toil only from _eight_ to _ten_ hours a day, according to the season of the year; yet the law providing that the innocent slave should labor but _fourteen_ or _fifteen_ hours a day, professes to have been made as a merciful amelioration of his lot!--In Rome, the slaves had a yearly festival called the Saturnalia, during which they were released from toil, changed places with their masters, and indulged in unbounded merriment; at first it lasted but one day; but its duration afterwards extended to two, three, four, and five days in succession. We have no Saturnalia here--unless we choose thus to designate a coffle of slaves, on the fourth of July, rattling their chains to the sound of a violin, and carrying the banner of freedom in hands loaded with irons.

[Footnote L: See Western Review, No. 2, on the Agriculture of Louisiana.]

In Georgia, "The inferior courts of the several counties on _receiving information on oath_ of any _infirm_ slave or slaves, being in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners, can make _particular inquiries_ into the situation of such slaves, and render such relief as they think proper. And the said courts may sue for and recover from the owner of such slaves the amount appropriated for their relief." The information must, in the first place, be given by a _white man_ upon oath; and of whom must the "particular inquiries" be made? Not of the slave, nor of his companions,--for their evidence goes for nothing; and would a master, capable of starving an aged slave, be likely to confess the whole truth about it? The judges of the inferior courts, if from defect of evidence, or any other cause, they are unable to _prove_ that relief was absolutely needed, must pay all the expenses from their own private purses. Are there many, think you, so desperately enamored of justice, as to take all this trouble, and incur all this risk, for a starving slave?

PROP. 3.--_Slaves considered personal chattels, liable to be sold, pledged, &c._

The advertisements in the Southern papers furnish a continued proof of this; it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of evidence.[M] The power to separate mothers and children, husbands and wives, is exercised only in the British West Indies, and the _republic_ of the United States!

[Footnote M: A white man engaged in a disturbance was accompanied by three or four slaves; his counsel contended that there were not _persons_ enough in the affair to constitute a riot, because the slaves were mere _chattels_ in the eye of the law. It was, however, decided that when liable to the _punishment_ of the law, they were persons.]

In Louisiana there is indeed a humane provision in this respect: "If at a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled through old age or otherwise, and who have children, such slaves shall not be sold but with such of his or of her children, whom he or she may think proper to go with." But though parents cannot be sold apart from their children, without their consent, yet the master may keep the parents and sell the _children_, if he chooses; in which case the separation is of course equally painful.--"By the _Code Noir_, of Louis the Fourteenth, husbands and wives, parents and children, are not allowed to be sold separately. If sales contrary to this regulation are made by process of law, under _seizure for debts_, such sales are declared void; but if such sales are made _voluntarily_ on the part of the owner, a wiser remedy is given--the wife, or husband, children, or parent retained by the seller, may be claimed by the purchaser, without any additional price; and thus the separated family may be re-united again. The most solemn agreement between the parties contrary to this rule has been adjudged void." In the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies, plantation slaves are considered _real estate_, attached to the soil they cultivate, and of course not liable to be torn from their homes whenever the master chooses to sell them; neither can they be seized or sold by their master's creditors.

The following quotation shows how the citizens of this country bear comparison with men _called_ savages. A recent traveller in East Florida says: "Another trait in the character of the Seminole Indians, is their great indulgence to their slaves. The greatest pressure of hunger or thirst never occasions them to impose onerous labors on the negroes, or to dispose of them, though tempted by high offers, if the latter are unwilling to be sold."

PROP. 4.--_Slaves can have no legal claim to any property._

The civil code of Louisiana declares: "_All that a slave possesses belongs to his master_--he possesses nothing of his own, except his peculium, that is to say, the sum of money or moveable estate, which _his master chooses he should possess_."--"Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting property."--"Slaves cannot dispose of, or receive, by donation, unless they have been enfranchised conformably to law, or are expressly enfranchised by the act, by which the donation is made to them."

In South Carolina "it is not lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c., without a license from his owner; nor shall any slave be allowed to keep any boat or canoe, for his own benefit, or raise any horses, cattle, sheep, or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, boats, canoes, horses, &c., &c.; and it shall be lawful for _any person_ to seize and take away from any slave all such goods, boats, &c., and to deliver the same into the hands of the nearest justice of the peace; and if the said justice be satisfied that such seizure has been made according to law, he shall order the goods to be sold at public outcry; one half of the moneys arising from the sale to go to the State, and the other half to him or them that sue for the same." In North Carolina there is a similar law; but half of the proceeds of the sale goes to the county poor, and half to the informer.

In Georgia, a fine of thirty dollars a week is imposed upon any master who allows his slave to hire himself out for his own benefit. In Virginia, if a master permit his slave to hire himself out, he is subject to a fine, from ten to twenty dollars; and it is lawful for any person, and the _duty_ of the Sheriff, to apprehend the slave. In Maryland, the master, by a similar offence, except during twenty days at harvest time, incurs a penalty of twenty dollars per month.

In Mississippi, if a master allow his slave to cultivate cotton for his own use, he incurs a fine of fifty dollars; and if he license his slave to trade on his own account, he forfeits fifty dollars for each and every offence. Any person trading with a slave forfeits four times the value of the article purchased; and if unable to pay, he receives thirty-nine lashes, and pays the cost.

Among the Romans, the Grecians, and the ancient Germans, slaves were permitted to acquire and enjoy property of considerable value, as their own. This property was called the slave's _peculium_; and "the many anxious provisions of the Imperial Code on the subject, plainly show the general extent and importance of such acquisitions."--"The Roman slave was also empowered by law to enter into commercial and other contracts, by which the master was bound, to the extent of the value of the slave's _peculium_."--"The Grecian slaves had also their _peculium_; and were rich enough to make periodical presents to their masters, as well as often to purchase their freedom."

"The Helots of Sparta were so far from being destitute of property, or of legal powers necessary to its acquisition, that they were farmers of the lands of their masters, at low fixed rents, which the proprietor could not raise without dishonor."

"In our own day, the Polish slaves, prior to any recent alleviations of their lot, were not only allowed to hold property, but endowed with it by their lords."--"In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the money and effects, which a slave acquires, by his labor at times set apart for his own use, or by any other honest means, are legally his own, and cannot be seized by the master."--"In Africa, slaves may acquire extensive property, which their sable masters cannot take away. In New-Calabar, there is a man named Amachree, who has more influence and wealth than all the rest of the community, though he himself is a purchased slave, brought from the Braspan country; he has offered the price of a hundred slaves for his freedom; but according to the laws of the country he cannot obtain it, though his master, who is a poor and obscure individual, would gladly let him have it."

Among the Jews, a servant, or slave, often filled the highest offices of honor and profit, connected with the family. Indeed slavery among this ancient people was in its mildest, patriarchal form; and the same character is now stamped upon the _domestic_ slavery of Africa. St. Paul says, "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, [the Hebrew word translated _servant_ means _slave_] though he be lord of all." Gal. iv. 1. Again; "A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren." Proverbs, xvii. 2. The wealthy patriarch Abraham, before the birth of Isaac, designed to make his head servant, Eleazer of Damascus, his heir.

PROP. 5.--_No colored man can be evidence against a white man, &c._

This is an almost universal rule of slave law. The advocates of slavery seem to regard it as a necessary consequence of the system, which neither admits of concealment, nor needs it. "In one or two of our States this rule is founded upon _usage_; in others it is sanctioned by _express legislation_."

So long as this rule is acted upon, it is very plain, that all regulations made for the protection of the slave are perfectly useless;--however grievous his wrongs, they _cannot be proved_. The master is merely obliged to take the precaution not to starve, or mangle, or murder his negroes, _in the presence of a white man_. No matter if five hundred colored people be present, they cannot testify to the fact. Blackstone remarks, that "rights would be declared in vain, and in vain directed to be observed, if there were no method of recovering and asserting those rights, when wrongfully withheld, or invaded."

Stephens says: "It seems to result from the brief and general accounts which we have of the law of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, though I find it nowhere expressly noticed, that slaves there are not, in all cases at least, incompetent witnesses. But even in the French Windward Islands the evidence of negro slaves was admitted against all free persons, the master only excepted; and that in criminal as well as in civil cases, where the testimony of white people could not be found to establish the facts in dispute. The _Code Noir_ merely allowed a slave's testimony to be heard by the judge, as a suggestion which might throw light on other evidence, without amounting of itself to any degree of legal proof. But the Sovereign Council of Martinique, humbly represented to his majesty that great inconveniences might result from the execution of this law, by the _impunity_ of many crimes, which _could not be proved otherwise than by the testimony of slaves_; and they prayed that such evidence might be received in all cases in which there should not be sufficient proof by free witnesses. In consequence of this, the article in question was varied so far as to admit the testimony of slaves, when white witnesses were wanting, except against their masters."

PROP. 6.--_The master has absolute power to punish a slave, &c._

Stroud says, "There was a time in many, if not in all the slaveholding districts of our country, when the murder of a slave was followed by a pecuniary fine only. In one State, the change of the law in this respect has been very recent. At the present date (1827) I am happy to say the wilful, malicious, deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is _declared_ to be punishable with death in every State. The evil is not that the laws _sanction_ crime, but that they do not _punish_ it. And this arises chiefly, if not solely, from the exclusion of the testimony, on the trial of a white person, of all those who are _not_ white."

"The conflicting influences of humanity and prejudice are strangely contrasted in the law of North Carolina on this subject. An act passed in 1798, runs thus: 'Whereas by another act of assembly, passed in the year 1774, the killing of a slave, however wanton, cruel, and deliberate, is only punishable in the first instance by imprisonment, and paying the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of criminality between the murder of a white person and one _who is equally a human creature, but merely of a different complexion_, is disgraceful to humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free Christian, and enlightened country, be it enacted, &c., that if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave, such offender shall, upon the first conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man; _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[N] to his lawful owner or master, or to any slave_ DYING _under_ MODERATE CORRECTION.'"

[Footnote N: "It has been judicially determined that it is _justifiable_ to kill a slave, resisting, or _offering to resist_ his master by force."--_Stroud._]

In the laws of Tennessee and Georgia, there is a similar proviso. Where could such a monstrous anomaly be found, save in a code of slave laws? _Die_ of _moderate_ punishment!! Truly, this _is_ an unveiling of consciences!

"To set the matter in its proper light, it may be added that a proclamation, of _outlawry_[O] against a slave is authorized, whenever he runs away from his master, conceals himself in some obscure retreat, and to sustain life, kills a _hog_, or some animal of the cattle kind!

[Footnote O: "The outlawry of a slave is not, I believe, an unusual occurrence. Very recently, a particular account was given of the killing of a black man, _not charged with any offence_, by a person in pursuit of an _outlawed_ slave; owing, as it was stated, to the person killed not _answering_ a call made by his pursuers. Whether the call was _heard_ or not, of course could not be assertained, nor did it appear to have excited any inquiry."--_Stroud._]

"A pecuniary mulct was the only restraint upon the wilful murder of a slave, from the year 1740 to 1821, a period of more than eighty years. I find in the case of _The State vs. M'Gee, 1 Bay's Reports_, 164, it is said incidentally by Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the State, that the _frequency_ of the offence was owing to the nature of the punishment. This was said in the public court-house by men of great respectability; nevertheless, thirty years elapsed before a change of the law was effected. So far as I have been able to learn, the following section has disgraced the statute-book of South Carolina from the year 1740 to the present hour: 'In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, _cruelly_ scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment,--[_otherwise than by whipping, or beating, with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch, or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining, or imprisoning such slave_,]--every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.' Here is direct legislation to _sanction_ beating without limit, with horsewhip or cowskin,--the application of irons to the human body,--and perpetual incarceration in a dungeon, according to the will of the master; and the mutilation of limbs is paid by a trifling penalty!

"The revised code of Louisiana declares: 'The slave is entirely subject to the will of the master, who may correct and chastise him, though not with _unusual_ rigor, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death.'" Who shall decide what punishment is _unusual_?

In Missouri, if a slave refuses to obey his or her master, mistress, overseer, or employer, in any lawful commands, such slaves may be committed to the county jail, there to remain as long as his owner pleases.

In some of the States there are indeed restraining laws; but they are completely ineffectual, from the difficulty of obtaining the evidence of _white men_.

"The same despotic power can be exerted by the attorney, manager, driver, or any other person who is, for the time being, placed over the slave by order of the owner, or his delegates. The following is the language of the Louisiana code; and it represents the established customs of all the slaveholding States: 'The condition of a slave being merely a passive one, his subordination to his master, and to all who _represent_ him, is not susceptible of any modification, or restriction, [except in what can incite the slave to the commission of crime] in such manner, that he owes to his master, and to all his family, a respect without bounds, and an absolute obedience; and he is consequently to execute all the orders, which he receives from his said master, or from them.'"

What chance of mercy the slave has from the generality of overseers, may be conjectured from the following testimony given by a distinguished Virginian: Mr. Wirt, in his "Life of Patrick Henry," speaking of the different classes in Virginia, says: "Last and lowest, a _feculum_ of beings called overseers--the _most abject_, _degraded_, _unprincipled_ race--always cap in hand to the Dons who employed them, and furnishing materials for the exercise of their pride, insolence, and spirit of domination."

The Gentoo code, the most ancient in the world, allowed a wife, a son, a pupil, a younger brother, or a slave, to be whipped with a lash, or bamboo twig, in such a manner as not to occasion any dangerous hurt; and whoever transgressed the rule, suffered the punishment of a thief. In this case, the slave and other members of the family were _equally_ protected.

The Mosaic law was as follows: "If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, _he shall let him go free_ for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, _he shall let him go free_ for his tooth's sake." Exodus, xxi. 26, 27.

PROP. 7.--_The slave never allowed to resist a white man._

It is enacted in Georgia, "If any slave shall presume to strike _any_ white man, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice, shall for the _first_ offence, suffer such punishment as the said justice thinks fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, _death_." It is the same in South Carolina, excepting that death is there the punishment of the _third_ offence. However wanton and dangerous the attack upon the slave may be, he must submit; there is only one proviso--he may be excused for striking in defence of his _master_, _overseer_, &c., and of _their_ property. In Maryland, a colored man, even if he be _free_, may have his ears cropped for striking a white man. In Kentucky, it is enacted that "if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or _free_, shall at any time lift his or her hand, in opposition to _any_ person not colored, they shall, the offence being proved before a justice of the peace, receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on." There is a ridiculous gravity in the following section of a law in Louisiana: "Free people of color ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but on the contrary, they ought to yield to them _on every occasion_, and never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence."

Such laws are a positive _inducement_ to violent and vicious white men to oppress and injure people of color. In this point of view, a negro becomes the slave of every white man in the community. The brutal drunkard, or the ferocious madman, can beat, rob, and mangle him with perfect impunity. Dr. Torrey, in his "Portraiture of Domestic Slavery," relates an affecting anecdote, which happened near Washington. A free negro walking along the road, was set upon by two intoxicated ruffians on horseback, who, without any provocation, began to torture him for _amusement_. One of them tied him to the tail of his horse, and thus dragged him along, while the other followed, applying the lash. The poor fellow died by the roadside, in consequence of this treatment.

The _owner_ may prosecute when a slave is rendered unfit for labor, by personal violence; and in the reports of these cases many painful facts come to light which would otherwise have remained for ever unknown. See Judicial Reports.

PROP. 8.--_Slaves cannot redeem themselves or change masters._

Stroud says, "as to the right of _redemption_, this proposition holds good in all the slaveholding States; and is equally true as it respects the right to compel a _change of masters_, except in Louisiana. According to the new civil code of that State, the latter privilege may sometimes, perhaps, be obtained by the slave. But the master must first be _convicted_ of cruelty--a task so formidable that it can hardly be ranked among possibilities; and secondly, it is _optional_ with the judge, whether or not, to make the decree in favor of the slave."

If a slave should _not_ obtain a decree in his favor, what has he to expect from a master exasperated against him, for making the attempt?

At Athens, so deservedly admired for the mildness of her slave laws, the door of freedom was opened widely. The abused slaves might fly to the Temple of Theseus, whence no one had a right to take them, except for the purpose of publicly investigating their wrongs. If their complaints were well founded, they were either enfranchised, or delivered to more merciful hands.

In the Roman Empire, from the time of Adrian and the Antonines, slaves were protected by the laws, and undue severity being proved, they received freedom or a different master.

By the _Code Noir_ of the French islands, a slave cruelly treated is forfeited to the crown; and the court, which judges the offence, has power to confer freedom on the sufferer. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, a slave on complaint of ill-usage obtains public protection; he may be manumitted, or change his master.

PROP. 9.--_Slave unprotected in his domestic relations._

In proof of this, it is only necessary to repeat that the slave and his wife, and his daughters, are considered as the _property_ of their owners, and compelled to yield implicit obedience--that he is allowed to give no evidence--that he must not resist _any_ white man, under _any_ circumstances which do not interfere with his _master's_ interest--and finally, that public opinion ridicules the slave's claim to any exclusive right in his own wife and children.

In Athens, the female slave could demand protection from the magistrates; and if her complaints of insulting treatment were well founded, she could be sold to another master, who, in his turn, forfeited his claim by improper conduct.

PROP. 10.--_The laws obstruct emancipation._

In nearly all slaveholding States, a slave emancipated by his master's will, may be seized and sold to satisfy _any debt_. In Louisiana, fraud of creditors is by law considered as _proved_, if it can be made to appear that the master, at the moment of executing the deed of enfranchisement, had not sufficient property to pay all his debts; and if after payment of debts, there be not personal estate enough to satisfy the widow's claim to one third, his slaves, though declared to be free by his last will, are nevertheless liable to be sold for the widow's portion.--In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, a valid emancipation can only be gained by authority of the Legislature, expressly granted. A slave-owner _cannot_ manumit his slaves without the formal consent of the Legislature. "In Georgia, any attempt to free a slave in any other manner than the prescribed form, is punished by a fine of two hundred dollars for each _offence_; and the slave or slaves are still, to all intents and purposes, in a state of slavery." A new act was passed in that State in 1818, by which any person, who endeavors to enfranchise a slave by will, testament, contract, or stipulation, or who contrives indirectly to confer freedom by allowing his slaves to enjoy the profit of their labor and skill, incurs a penalty not exceeding _one thousand dollars_; and the slaves who have been the object of such benevolence, are ordered to be seized and sold at public outcry.

In North Carolina, "no slave is allowed to be set free, except for _meritorious services_, to be adjudged of and allowed by the county court, and license first had and obtained thereupon;" and any slave manumitted contrary to this regulation may be seized, put in jail, and sold to the highest bidder. In Mississippi _all_ the above obstacles to emancipation are combined in one act.

In Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland, greater facilities are afforded to emancipation. An instrument in writing, signed by two witnesses, or acknowledged by the owner of the slave in open court, is sufficient; the court reserving the power to demand security for the maintenance of aged or infirm slaves. By the Virginia laws, an emancipated negro, more than twenty-one years old, is liable to be again reduced to slavery, if he remain in the State more than twelve months after his manumission.

In Louisiana, a slave cannot be emancipated, unless he is thirty years old and has behaved well at least four years preceding his freedom; except a slave who has saved the life of his master, his master's wife, or one of his children. It is necessary to make known to the judge the intention of conferring freedom, who may authorize it, after it has been advertised at the door of the court-house forty days, without exciting any opposition.

Stephens, in his history of West India slavery, supposes that the colonial codes of England are the only ones expressly framed to obstruct emancipation. He is mistaken;--the American _republics_ share that distinction with their mother country. There are plenty of better things in England to imitate.

According to the Mosaic law, a Hebrew could not retain his brother, whom he might buy as a servant, more than six years, against his consent, and in the seventh year he went out free for nothing. If he came by himself, he went out by himself; if he were married when he came, his wife went with him. _Exodus_ xxi, _Deut._ xv, _Jeremiah_