A law pa.s.sed in Tennessee, in 1831, provides that negroes for conspiracy to rebel, shall be punished with whipping, imprisonment and pillory, at the discretion of the court; it has this curious proviso--"Householders _may_ serve as jurors, if _slaveholders_ cannot be had!"[S] The Southern courts need to have a great deal of _discretion_, since so much is trusted to it.

[Footnote S: The Common Law a.s.signs for the trial of a foreigner, six jurors of his own nation, and six native Englishmen.]

_Cla.s.s Second._--In Virginia, _white_ persons who teach any colored person to read or write, are fined not exceeding fifty dollars; for teaching slaves for pay, from ten to twenty dollars for each offence.

In Georgia, a similar offence is fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court. Knowledge seems to be peculiarly _pokerish_ in Georgia.

In North Carolina, if a white person teach a slave to read or write, or give or sell him _any_ book, &c., he is fined from one to two hundred dollars.

In Louisiana, any white person, who teaches a slave to read or write, is imprisoned one year. And if any person shall use any language from the _bar_, _bench_, _stage_, _pulpit_, or any other place,--or hold any conversation having a _tendency_ to promote discontent among free colored people, or insubordination among slaves, he may be imprisoned at hard labor, not less than three, nor more than twenty-one years; or he may suffer death--at the discretion of the court.

In Mississippi, a white man, who prints or circulates doctrines, sentiments, advice, or _innuendoes_, likely to produce discontent among the colored cla.s.s, is fined from one hundred to a thousand dollars, and imprisoned from three to twelve months.

All the States which have p.r.o.nounced an anathema against books and alphabets, have likewise forbidden that any colored man shall be employed in a printing-office, under the penalty of ten dollars for every offence.

In Mississippi, any white who employs, or receives a free colored person, without a certificate of freedom, written on parchment, forfeits _one thousand dollars_.

If any master, in that State, allows his slaves to sell any wares or merchandise out of the incorporated towns, he is liable to a fine of from fifty to five hundred dollars.

In Virginia, any person who buys of a slave any article belonging to his master, forfeits from ten to fifty dollars; if the purchase be made on Sunday, ten dollars more are added to the fine for each article.

This enactment is evidently made to prevent a slave from obtaining any money, or holding communication with freemen; a particular proviso is made against Sunday, because the slave has usually more leisure on that day. It is to be remembered that all a slave has belongs to his master.

To carry a slave out of North Carolina, or conceal him with intent to carry him out, is punished with death.

If a runaway slave die in prison, before he or she can be sold, _the county pays the sheriff and jailer_; formerly these officers depended on the life and marketableness of their prisoners for security; but even this poor motive for kindness is now taken away. If ninety-nine out of a hundred die in prison, they will be heard of only in the _jailer's bill_. I never heard or read of an _inquest_ upon the body of a slave found dead. Under the term "runaway slaves" are included many free colored persons taken up unjustly.

Well might Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country, when I reflect that G.o.d is just!"

In travelling over this dreary desert, it is pleasant to arrive at one little oasis: Louisiana _has_ enacted that slaves brought into that State for sale, shall forthwith be set free; but they must be sent out of the State.

It is worthy of remark that England pursues a totally different course with regard to allowing slaves to communicate with free people. Their recent laws are all calculated to make it easy for the slave to obtain a fair hearing from people who have no interest to suppress his complaints. He may go upon any plantation, and communicate with any person; and whoever tries to prevent his going to a magistrate is guilty of a misdemeanor.

They have abolished all distinction between white and colored witnesses.

The law expressly stipulates the quality and quant.i.ty of provisions.

Inquest is held upon the bodies of slaves dying suddenly, or from any suspected violence.

Use of the cart-whip prohibited; and no female to be punished except by order of the court.

Only fifteen lashes allowed as a punishment to men for one offence, and in one day: two kinds of punishment never allowed for one offence.

When a slave is punished, two competent witnesses must be present.

The owner is obliged to keep a record of domestic punishments and the causes.

Marriages among slaves are encouraged, and husband and wife are not allowed to be sold separately. Children under sixteen years old cannot be separated from their parents.

Masters illegally punishing their slaves, are subject to fine, imprisonment, and loss of the slave, for the first offence; for the second offence, sequestration of all their slaves.

Free colored representatives are allowed to take their seats in the legislature, and share all the other privileges of British subjects.

Yet these humane laws, so carefully framed in favor of the defenceless, have been found insufficient to protect the slave. Experience proves, what reason clearly points out, that the force of good laws must be weakened by the very nature of this unholy relation. Where there is knowledge and freedom on one side, and ignorance and servitude on the other, evasions and subterfuges will of course be frequent. Hence English philanthropists have universally come to the conclusion that nothing effectual can be done, unless slavery itself be destroyed.

The limits of this work compel me to pa.s.s by many enactments in our slaveholding States, which would throw still more light on this dark subject.

I have laid open some of the laws which do actually exist, and are constantly enforced in this free country; and knowing all this, and still more, to be true, I blush and hang my head, whenever I hear any one boast of our "glorious inst.i.tutions."

The slaveholders insist that their _humanity_ is so great, as to render all their ferocious laws perfectly harmless. Are the laws then made on purpose to urge tender-hearted masters to be so much worse than they really desire to be? The democrats of the South appear to be less scrupulous about the liberties of others, than the Autocrat of the Russias;--for, when Madame de Stael told the Emperor Alexander that his _character_ answered instead of a _const.i.tution_ for his country, he replied, "Then, madam, I am but a lucky _accident_." How much more emphatically may it be said, that the slave's destiny is a matter of chance! Reader, would you trust the very best man you know, with your time, your interests, your family, and your life, unless the contract were guarded on every side by the strong arm of the law? If a money-loving neighbor could force you to toil, and could gain a certain number of dollars for every hour of your labor, how much rest should you expect to have?

It is utter nonsense to say that generosity of disposition is a protection against tyranny, where all the power is on one side. It may be, and it no doubt is so, in particular instances; but they must be exceptions to the general rule.

We all know that the Southerners have a high sense of what the world calls honor, and that they are brave, hospitable, and generous to people of their own color; but the more we respect their virtues, the more cause is there to lament the demoralizing _system_, which produces such unhappy effects on all who come within its baneful influence. Most of them may be as kind as can be expected of human nature, endowed with almost unlimited power to do wrong; and some of them may be even more benevolent than the warmest friend of the negro would dare to hope; but while we admit all this, we must not forget that there is in every community a cla.s.s of men, who will not be any better than the laws compel them to be.

Captain Riley, in his Narrative, says: "Strange as it may seem to the philanthropist, my free and proud-spirited countrymen still hold a million and a half[T] of human beings in the most cruel bonds of slavery; who are kept at hard labor, and smarting under the lash of inhuman mercenary drivers; in many instances enduring the miseries of hunger, thirst, imprisonment, cold, nakedness, and even tortures. This is no picture of the imagination. For the honor of human nature, I wish likenesses were nowhere to be found! I myself have witnessed such scenes in different parts of my own country; and the bare recollection of them now chills my blood with horror."

[Footnote T: There are now over two million.]

When the slave-owners talk of their gentleness and compa.s.sion, they are witnesses in their own favor, and have strong motives for showing the fairest side. But what do the laws themselves imply? Are enactments ever made against exigencies which do not exist? If negroes have never been scalded, burned, mutilated, &c., why are such crimes forbidden by an express law, with the marvellous proviso, except said slave _die_ of "_moderate_ punishment!" If a law sanctioning whipping to any extent, incarceration at the discretion of the master, and the body loaded with irons, is called a _restraining_ law, let me ask what crimes must have been committed, to require _prohibition_, where so much is _allowed_?

The law which declares that slaves shall be compelled to labor _only_ fourteen or fifteen hours a day, has the following preamble: "Whereas _many_ owners of slaves, managers, &c. _do_ confine them so closely to hard labor that they have not sufficient time for natural rest," &c. Mr.

Pinckney, in a public argument, speaking of slaves murdered by severe treatment, says: "The _frequency_ of the crime is no doubt owing to the nature of the punishment." The reader will observe that I carefully refrain from quoting the representations of party spirit, and refer to _facts_ only for evidence.

Where the laws are made by the people, a majority of course approve them; else they would soon be changed. It must therefore in candor be admitted, that the _laws_ of a State speak the prevailing _sentiments_ of the inhabitants.

Judging by this rule, what inference must be drawn from the facts stated above? "At Sparta, the freeman is the freest of all men, and the slave is the greatest of slaves."

Our republic is a perfect Pandora's box to the negro, only there is no _hope_ at the bottom. The wretchedness of his fate is not a little increased by being a constant witness of the unbounded freedom enjoyed by others: the slave's labor must necessarily be like the labor of Sisiphus; and here the torments of Tantalus are added.

Slavery is so inconsistent with free inst.i.tutions, and the spirit of liberty is so contagious under such inst.i.tutions, that the system must either be given up, or sustained by laws outrageously severe; hence we find that our slave laws have each year been growing more harsh than those of any other nation.

Shall I be told that all these regulations are necessary for the white man's safety? What then, let me indignantly ask, what must the system be that _requires_ to be supported by such unnatural, such tyrannical means? The very apology p.r.o.nounces the condemnation of slavery--for it proves that it cannot exist without producing boundless misery to the oppressed, and perpetual terror to the oppressor.

In our fourth of July orations, we are much in the habit of talking about the tyranny of England! and there is no doubt that broad and deep stains do rest upon her history. But there is a vulgar proverb that "those who live in gla.s.s houses should not throw stones." In judging of national, as well as individual wrong, it is fair to consider the amount of temptation. England has had power, more extensive and permanent than any nation since the decline of Rome: the negroes and the Indians are the only people who have been dependant on _our_ justice and generosity--and how have we treated _them_?

It is a favorite argument that we are not to blame for slavery, because the British engrafted it upon us, while we were colonies. But did we not take the liberty to _change_ English laws and customs, when they did not suit us? Why not put away _this_, as well as other evils of much less consequence? It could have been done easily, at the time of our confederation; it _can_ be done now.--Have not other nations been making alterations for the better, on this very subject, since we became independent? Is not England trying with all her might to atone for the wrong she has done? Does not the const.i.tution of the United States, and the const.i.tution of each individual State, make provision for such changes as shall tend to the public good?

The plain truth is, the continuation of this system is a sin; and the sin rests upon us: It has been eloquently said that "by this excuse, we try to throw the blame upon our ancestors, and leave repentance to posterity."

CHAPTER III.

FREE LABOR AND SLAVE LABOR.--POSSIBILITY OF SAFE EMANc.i.p.aTION.

Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work.--_Jeremiah_ xxii, 13.

Who can reflect, unmoved, upon the round Of smooth and solemnized complacences, By which, on Christian lands, from age to age, Profession mocks performance. Earth is sick, And Heaven is weary, of the hollow words, Which states and kingdoms utter when they talk Of truth and justice.