Part 3 (1/2)
While the slave-trade was allowed, the South could use it to advance their views in various ways. In their representation to Congress, five slaves counted the same as three freemen; of course, every fresh cargo was not only an increase of property, but an increase of _political power_. Ample time was allowed to lay in a stock of slaves to supply the new slave states and territories that might grow up; and when this was effected, the prohibition of foreign commerce in human flesh, operated as a complete _tariff_, to protect the domestic supply.
Every man who buys a slave promotes this traffic, by raising the value of the article; every man who owns a slave, indirectly countenances it; every man who allows that slavery is a lamentable _necessity_, contributes his share to support it; and he who votes for admitting a slave-holding State into the Union, fearfully augments the amount of this crime.
CHAPTER II.
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 st.u.r.dy 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 cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 quant.i.ty 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 pa.s.sed, 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 quant.i.ty 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 circ.u.mstances: 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._