Part 1

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

ANTI-SLAVERY

CATECHISM.

BY MRS. CHILD,

_Author of ‘An Appeal in favor of that class of Americans called Africans,’ the ‘Evils of Slavery, and the Cure of Slavery,’ ‘Authentic Anecdotes of American Slavery,’ ‘History of the Condition of Women,’ ‘The Oasis,’ ‘Frugal Housewife,’ &c._

“On the nation’s naked heart Scatter the living coals of Truth.”

Second Edition.

NEWBURYPORT: PUBLISHED BY CHARLES WHIPPLE. 1839.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835, By CHARLES WHIPPLE, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

ANTI-SLAVERY CATECHISM.

_Question._ Why do you consider it a duty to preach and publish abolition doctrines?

_Answer._ First, I consider it my duty as a Christian; for the system of slavery, as a whole, and in each one of its details, is in direct opposition to the precepts of the gospel. Secondly, I consider it my duty as a conscientious citizen of this republic; for I believe slavery is prejudicial to the best interests of my country; and I dare not hope that God’s blessing will rest upon us, if we persevere in our iniquity.

_Q._ But the abolitionists are accused of showing the worst side of slavery. Is it not true that they seek to give an exaggerated idea of its evils?

_A._ I believe every man, who candidly examines the subject, will come to the conclusion, that every side appears to be the worst side. Allow me to give a brief statement of the case. Between two and three millions of people are compelled to labor without wages. They gain nothing more by working ten hours than they would by working one hour. It is not in human nature that they should be disposed to be industrious under these circumstances. They try to do as little as possible. The chief part of the labor that is got out of their bones and sinews is obtained by fear of the whip. A peck of corn a week is the usual allowance for the food of a slave. The planters generally estimate that a slave can be fed and clothed at an expense of from fifteen to twenty dollars a year. The following is the printed testimony of Thomas Clay, of Georgia, himself a slave-holder, though reputed to be an amiable, conscientious man: “A peck of corn per week, if it be sound flint corn, is sufficient to sustain health and strength under moderate labor. But there is _often_ a defect in the quality, and the quantity is then insufficient. The present economy of the slave system is to get all you can from the slave, and give in return as little as will barely support him in a working condition. Even where there is not direct intention to abridge his comforts, they are but little consulted; and the slave, seeing his master wholly engrossed by his own advantage, naturally adopts the same selfish course, and, when not restrained by higher principles, becomes deceitful and selfish.”

_Q._ If Mr. Thomas Clay is a good man, and really thinks slavery so bad in its effects, why does he not emancipate his own slaves?

_A._ If you were to ask him, I suppose he would give an answer very common among planters. He would tell you that he could not do it because the laws of the State in which he lives impose such heavy penalties, that the process of emancipation is extremely difficult and expensive.

_Q._ Who makes the laws of the Southern States?

_A._ The slave-holders themselves. When I hear a man say that he would gladly emancipate his slaves, if the _laws_ would allow it, it makes me think of an anecdote I have often heard. A little girl had been ordered to perform some household work in the absence of her mother. When the parent returned, and saw that her orders had not been obeyed, she said, “My child, why have you not done as I bid you?” The little girl replied, “I should have been glad to do it, mother; but I could not. Don’t you see I am tied?” “And pray who tied you?” inquired the mother. “I tied myself,” was the reply. Now this is plainly the case with the slave-holders. They make oppressive laws, and persist in upholding those laws, and then say, “I would do my duty, if I could; but the _laws_ will not permit it.”

_Q._ Do the slaves have to work all the time?

_A._ In some States the laws ordain that slaves shall not be compelled to work _more_ than _fourteen_ hours a day, from September to March, nor more than _fifteen_ hours a day, from March to September; and it is reasonable to conclude that there would have been no necessity for making such a law, unless some masters _did_ compel their slaves to toil beyond the specified hours. Convicts, who are imprisoned for crime, are not obliged to work more than ten hours a day, and are better fed than the slaves. It is an extraordinary thing for a slave to be sent to the state prison for an offence. Instead of punishment, it would in fact be amelioration of his lot.

_Q._ But I have been told that the slaves sometimes work for themselves.

_A._ When they happen to have kind masters, they are sometimes allowed a part of the time to earn something for themselves; but the laws are extremely inefficient for the protection of property thus acquired. If a white man sees fit to seize the products of their industry, the law in most cases affords no redress; because in slave States a colored man is never allowed to give evidence against a white man, under any circumstances. Any note of hand, or written contract with a slave is worth no more than a promissory note to a dog; because no slave can bring an action at law. In several of the States, a slave is liable to punishment if it is ascertained that he has acquired any property.

_Q._ I have been told that masters are allowed to kill their slaves. Can this be true?

_A._ The laws do indeed nominally consider the killing of a slave as murder; but no instance has ever been recorded of a white man executed for killing a slave. One law on this subject has the following strange qualification: “Except said slave die of _moderate_ punishment.” As if any punishment, that occasioned death, _could_ be moderate! If a hundred blacks or mulattoes, either bond or free, should see a slave murdered, it avails nothing against the murderer; because the laws of slave States do not allow a colored person, under any circumstances, to testify against a white man. The laws of South Carolina favor the master to such a degree, that when accused of murdering a slave, he may be absolved simply upon _his own oath_, that he did not commit the crime!

_Q._ But I am told that white men are not unfrequently prosecuted for cruelty to slaves; and this looks as if the laws afforded the poor creatures some protection.

_A._ I have read not a few Reports of Cases in Southern Courts; and those reports did more than any thing else to make me an abolitionist. Prosecutions are always brought for the master’s interest—never for the protection or redress of the slave. In Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 1818, you will find the case of Jourdan _vs._ Patten. In this case a lady sued a neighboring proprietor for the damage of putting out the only eye of one of her slaves. The Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay the lady the sum of twelve hundred dollars; in consideration of which, the slave should be placed in _his_ possession. The lady received all the money, as an indemnification for the loss of property; but the poor slave not only received no atonement for his sufferings, but was actually given to the very man that had knocked his eye out! This is a fair sample of the nature of all such prosecutions. In Nott & McCord’s South Carolina Reports, 1818, it is stated that a slave belonging to Mrs. E. Witsell, was shot through the head by two men who were hunting runaway negroes. The lady commenced an action to recover the value of her slave. The judge told the jury that circumstances _might_ exist to authorize the killing of a negro, _without the sanction of a magistrate, or even the order of a militia officer_; but it was thought such circumstances were not connected with _this_ case; the lady was therefore entitled to compensation for injury done to her property. As for the poor slave himself, his parents, his wife, or his children, they were never once thought of in the matter.

_Q._ But do you really believe they hunt negroes with dogs and guns, as some people say?

_A._ There cannot be the slightest doubt of the fact. Dogs are trained for that express purpose. The planters justify the practice, by saying it is absolutely necessary for their own safety; because runaway negroes, who collect in the woods and swamps, will soon begin to commit depredations on the neighboring estates. Thus the evils inevitably growing out of this bad system are made use of to justify its cruelties. Free laborers would have no inducement to run away and hide in swamps. It would obviously be for their own interest to keep at work. These negro hunts seem to be entered into with all the keen excitement of sportsmen going out to hunt squirrels or hares. A letter written near Edenton, N.C. among other items of news, states: “We have had great negro shooting lately.” A gentleman well known in the literary world resided for some time in the family of a Georgia planter; and he himself stated to me that three negro hunts took place during the first nine months of his stay there. He said, that one night hearing a noise below stairs, he hastened to ascertain the cause. “The gentlemen of the family were cleaning and loading their guns, trying their flints, and going through the usual preparations, apparently for a deer hunt, as buck shot and bullets were in demand. The children of the family had partaken of the general excitement, and arisen from their beds. As I entered the room, I could hear one of the youngest say, ‘Why, pa, you wouldn’t kill Ralph, would you?’ ‘I would take him, and sell him, and get money for him,’ said the next of age. ‘You will only lame him, so as to seize him, I suppose,’ said the mother. ‘I would rather kill him than the best fat buck in the country,’ replied the father, as he rammed down the heavy charge. The moonlight from the window glanced along the barrel of the piece, and caught the eye of the eldest boy. The reflected light kindled up his glance with something of an unnatural flash, but in vivid sympathy with the paternal look and attitude. The anticipated joy of vengeance seemed to be the predominating emotion.”

_Q._ If the laws are as you say, I should think the slaves did not stand a fair chance when they are _wrongfully_ accused.

_A._ If you will examine Stroud’s Compendium of the Slave Laws, you will be convinced for yourself that what I say is true; and the effect is as you suppose. The poor slaves are completely in the power of their masters. The same men who accuse them are often their judges and executioners. In illustration of this, I will tell you a case that occurred in Edenton, North Carolina. It was told by a woman who lived there at the time, and witnessed some of the executions. Many of the slaves in that place were skilful in mechanical trades. The planters in the back country were very desirous to purchase some of them; but their masters found it so profitable to let them out, that they would not consent to sell them. Those who were anxious to buy, hit upon the following expedient to obtain their purpose: They wrote anonymous letters, charging these intelligent slaves with having projected an insurrection. These letters were scattered about in Edenton, with the idea that the masters would be glad to sell such dangerous fellows; but instead of this, the poor innocent slaves were tried, convicted, and sentenced by their frightened owners; and a large number of them were put to death, upon no other evidence than anonymous letters.

_Q._ It does not seem as if such things could take place in a civilized country. Can you believe it?

_A._ If you reflect a little upon human nature, I believe you will think it perfectly natural that such abuses should exist, wherever one human being has arbitrary power over another. You would not like to place yourself completely in the power even of the best man you know; you would be afraid to have it depend entirely on his will how much work you should do in a day, what food you should eat, and what clothes you should wear, and how and when you should be punished. It is not considered entirely safe for an aged parent to relinquish all his property, and trust entirely to the generosity of his own children; what then do you suppose the poor slave has to expect, when he becomes too old and infirm to be profitable to his master?

_Q._ But the Southerners are said to be very honorable, generous men.

_A._ Our Southern brethren are just what any human beings would be under similar circumstances. They are generous with the proceeds of other men’s labor, for the same reason that the heir is prodigal of money, which another accumulates for him. He who can let out his neighbor, and his neighbor’s wife and children, and receive all their wages, will naturally be more profuse than a man who depends entirely on his own exertions. Planters have heretofore generally confessed that slavery is an evil, and many of them speak of its detailed abuses with strong regret; but these abuses are merely the necessary and inevitable results of the system they are helping to support; and they never can cure the abuses until they are willing to renounce the system itself. I suppose that few planters would think of palliating the treatment Mrs. Salarie’s slaves received; yet they are all helping to support a system under which such cruelties can be committed with impunity. Perhaps very humane and amiable masters do even more mischief than the desperately wicked; for they are always quoted as palliations of the whole system; and they approach so _near_ to the right line, that they can more easily draw over kind-hearted people, who have not thought much upon the subject.

_Q._ What is the history of Mrs. Salarie?

_A._ She resided in New Orleans. On the 10th of April, 1834, her splendid mansion took fire. During the midst of the conflagration, a rumor arose among the crowd that there were slaves chained in the burning dwelling; but those who asked for the keys were reproved for interfering with their neighbor’s business. At last the doors were forced open by sailors and mechanics, that had collected around the spot; and a New Orleans paper thus describes the horrible scene that presented itself: “Seven slaves more or less horribly mutilated, were seen, some chained to the floor, and some suspended by the neck to the ceiling, with their limbs stretched and torn from one extremity to the other. Their bodies, from head to foot, were covered with scars and sores, and filled with wounds. One poor old man, upwards of sixty years of age, was chained hand and foot, and made fast to the floor, in a kneeling position. His head bore the appearance of having been beaten until it was broken, and the worms were actually seen making a feast of his brains.”

_Q._ Every body must have thought her a very wicked woman. Did the slave-holders in the neighborhood pretend to justify her measures?

_A._ I have no doubt that every humane person, that heard of the event, expressed horror, and sincerely felt it. For several months previous to the discovery, her neighbors had been in the habit of living in apartments as far as possible from her house, on purpose to avoid the shrieks and groans of her poor suffering slaves; yet during all that time no complaint was laid before the public authorities, and no investigation demanded! I suppose neighbors were afraid to say any thing, lest they should be accused of promoting discontent among the negroes. Those who endeavor to keep human beings in the situation of beasts, are more afraid of them than they would be of beasts; because the human being has _reason_, which is always prone to offer resistance to tyranny. The consciousness of this makes slave-holders very irritable when any one in the community takes part with an abused slave, or expresses the slightest pity for his sufferings.

_Q._ Is it not for the master’s interest to treat the slaves well?

_A._ So it is for the interest of men to treat their horses and cattle well; and yet their passions not unfrequently make them forget their interests. Passive obedience is obtained from human beings with more difficulty than from animals; and when the master _is_ provoked, the poor slave is completely in his power, with scarcely the shadow of protection from the law. The law in no case recognises slaves as human beings; on the contrary, it expressly declares they “shall be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed to be _chattels personal_, in the hands of their owners and possessors, their administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and _purposes whatever_.” An act of Maryland, for the settlement of estates, enumerates specific articles, such as “slaves, working beasts, animals,” &c. Where even the _laws_ consider human beings as animals, it is not a matter of surprise that they are generally treated no better than self-interest leads men to treat animals. You will likewise perceive that when the slave becomes old, or diseased, or in any way unfit for labor, it is _not_ for the interest of his master to prolong his existence by rendering it comfortable. Then again that part of the system connected with _overseers_, shows plainly that the self-interest of the master cannot effectually secure good treatment to the slave. If planters were to give overseers a stated salary, without regard to the amount of produce, the overseers (who are proverbially unprincipled men) would have no motive for consulting the interest of their employers—it would be a matter of indifference to them whether much or little work were done. To obviate this difficulty, it is customary to give the overseer a certain _proportion_ of the profits of the plantation. Of course, it becomes his ruling desire to get the greatest possible amount of work done. He does not care how much the soil is exhausted, nor how much the negroes are broken down. If a slave says he is very ill, the overseer is unwilling to believe the story, because he is reluctant to lose a day’s labor. If the poor creature droops under his allotted task, he must be stimulated by the whip, because the overseer cannot spare an hour of his exertions. If the “slave dies under _moderate_ punishment,” the master must furnish a new laborer; and the loss falls on _him_, not on the overseer. It is obviously natural for the latter personage to think more of his own gains than of his employer’s losses. Every body knows that men are prone to drive hired horses with less mercy than their own; because they do not meet with any personal loss from injury done to the beast, and their object is to get their money’s worth of riding. Is it not a fearful thing for one human being to be placed towards another in the same relation that a stable-horse is toward the man who hires him? When planters are reminded of instances of cruelty, too well authenticated to be denied, they are prone to lay the blame upon overseers. Mr. Wirt, of Virginia, speaks of this class of men as “the lowest of the human race—always cap in hand to the dons who employ them, and furnishing materials for their pride, insolence, and love of dominion.” If we had no such information concerning the character of these men, we should naturally conclude that good people would be averse to enter into such an employment. Yet overseers and drivers are a necessary part of this bad system, because slaves are entirely deprived of the motives which induce free laborers to work; and since overseers must be employed, it is necessary to make it for their interest to get as much work out of the slave as possible. The evils of slavery are necessary and inevitable parts of the system; and whether the planters reprobate them or not, they cannot possibly avoid them, except by relinquishing the system. The master and his subordinate agents _must_ have discretionary power to punish, because their poor human brutes, being deprived of salutary motives to exertion, must be driven to it. The slave _must_ not be allowed to buy or sell, or make the most trifling contracts; because the oppressed being would naturally avail himself of this privilege, and sell some of the cotton or tobacco, which he cultivates for his master without wages. The laws _must_ punish them with great severity; because the very nature of their condition is a constant temptation to theft, falsehood, and murder. They _must_ be kept brutally ignorant; because if they were otherwise, they could not be kept in slavery. Licentiousness _must_ be countenanced among them; because their master’s interest is connected with their increase, and he might lose many good bargains if the laws did not allow him to sell a wife from her husband, or a husband from his wife. The law _must_ suppose a negro to be a slave, till he proves himself free; because runaway slaves would of course pretend that they were free. They _must_ not be allowed to witness against a white man; for a slave may have had a wife or a child whipped to death by a white man—and he may have many other good reasons for strong prejudice against white men. An unnatural system _must_ be sustained by unnatural means. Hence we find the same characteristic features in every country where negro slavery has been allowed.

_Q._ Some people think slavery as great a sin as the slave trade. Are you of that opinion?

_A._ There seems to me just the same difference as there is between the thief and the man who pays him for stealing. What would you say of a man who buys a horse, knowing it to be stolen? The following circumstance, which took place a short time before our Revolution, furnishes a good commentary on this matter. A Philadelphia negro was accused of having stolen goods in his possession. He acknowledged the fact, saying, “Massa Justice, me know me got dem tings from Tom dere, and me tink Tom teal dem too; but what den, Massa? dey be only a piccaninny knife, and a piccaninny corkscrew; one cost sixpence, and tudder a shilling; an me _pay Tom honestly for dem_, Massa.” “Pretty story, truly!” said his worship; “you knew they were stolen, and yet allege for excuse, you honestly paid for them. Don’t you know, Pompey, that the receiver is as bad as the thief? You must be severely whipped, you black rascal.” “Very well, Massa, if de black rascal be whipt for buying tolen goods, me hope de white rascal be whipt too, for same ting, when you catch him.” “To be sure,” replied the Justice. “Well den,” says Pompey, “here be Tom’s Massa—hold him fast, constable! He buy Tom, as I buy de piccaninny knife, and de piccaninny corkscrew. He know very well Tom be tolen from his old fadder and mudder; de knife and de corkscrew had neder.”