Slavery and the Constitution

Wm. Everett, Jailer.

"Dec. 24, 1835."

"Notice is hereby given, that the above-described boy, who calls himself John J. Robinson, having been confined in the jail of Warren County as a runaway for six months, and having been regularly advertised during this period, I shall proceed to sell said negro-boy at public auction to the highest bidder for cash, at the door of the Court-house in Vicksburg, on Monday, 1st of August, 1836, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided.

E. W. Morris, Sheriff.

"Vicksburg, July 2, 1836."

Slavery, as it exists, is not wrong, according to Bishops Ives and Freeman; and yet, in the diocese of the former, in the "Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer," June 27, 1838, this advertisement appears: —

"Taken and committed to Jail, a negro-girl, named Nancy, who is supposed to belong to Spencer P. Wright, of the State of Georgia. She is about 30 years of age, and is a lunatic. The owner is requested to come forward, prove property, pay charges, and take her away, or she will be sold to pay her jail fees.

Frederick Home, Jailer."

And suppose this supposition is incorrect, and that this poor woman does not belong to Mr. Wright, but on the contrary that she is free, how then will stand the case? A poor free woman, a lunatic, one who accordingly cannot by any possibility prove her freedom, being arrested as a runaway, may be sold as a slave for life, in virtue of the laws of the Christian State of North Carolina! And no one is entitled to pronounce such act to be wrong, unless he can produce a new revelation from Heaven! If a slave has performed a great service to the State or his master, as a reward he is set free; and, if the freeman, availing himself of his privileges, goes out of his own neighborhood, the law, with the sanction of right reverend fathers in God, consigns him to the auction block!

But the runaway slave is not always to be taken easily. Strenuous liberty is often preferred to slavish ease. To meet such cases, ample provision is made, no less degrading to the slave.

If any one here at the North should advertise that he was ready to pursue, with dogs trained for the purpose, runaway apprentices, or prisoners who had escaped from jail, we should all shudder at the cold-bloodedness of the proposition. Have we not, in the Old Bay State, just solemnly enacted that not even the most hardened convicts in our State Prison shall be whipped? How, then, can we so far forget our common manhood as to pursue our brother with bloodhounds? The slave, unlike the prisoner, has committed no crime. Unlike the apprentice, he has never consented, either by himself or his parents, to be a slave. He is held in slavery against his will, and not as the punishment for any crime; and yet, if he ventures to take his freedom, to assert the highest and holiest of all his rights, he is liable to be hunted with dogs and maimed with shot! In this so-called Christian country, which is spending its millions in regenerating the heathen, whole communities exist which tolerate such a fiendish occupation as a slave-hunter! Communities do we say? Has not the nation elevated to its highest post of honor the individual who first suggested to our government the idea of importing bloodhounds from Cuba, with which to track the Seminole Indians, and the fugitive slaves whom they protected, and with whom they had intermarried? How proudly did the star-spangled banner wave its folds over the gallant men and hounds that pursued and finally conquered the panting fugitives!

In the "Madison Journal," published at Richmond, La. Nov. 26, 1847, appears the following: —

"Notice. – The subscriber, living on Carroway Lake, on Hoe's Bayou, in Carroll Parish, sixteen miles on the road leading from Bayou Mason to Lake Providence, is ready with a pack of dogs to hunt runaway negroes at any time. These dogs are well trained, and are known throughout the parish. Letters addressed to me at Providence will secure immediate attention.

"My terms are $5 per day for hunting the trails, whether the negro is caught or not. Where a twelve hours' trail is shown, and the negro not taken, no charge is made. For taking a negro, $25, and no charge made for hunting.

James W. Hall."

In the "Sumpter County Whig" (Alabama) of Nov. 6, 1845, the following is found: —

"Negro Dogs. – The undersigned, having bought the entire pack of negro dogs (of the Hay & Allen stock), he now proposes to catch runaway negroes. His charges will be $3 a day for hunting, and $15 for catching a runaway. He resides three and one half miles north of Livingston, near the lower Jones' Bluff road.

William Gambrel.

"Nov. 6, 1845."

William W. Brown was hunted by Major Benjamin O'Fallon, who kept for his professional purposes five or six bloodhounds ("Narrative," p. 22). Last year, 1848, Mr. J. Ervin, a native of Fairfield District, South Carolina, a slave-hunter by profession, was murdered by some runaway slaves. Owners sometimes vary the monotony of a plantation life by a private hunt on their own account. But, unless they have considerable practice, they make a bungling piece of work of it. The true object, both of dogs and men, is the capture of the negro, not his death. Gen. Taylor did not wish to "worry" the Seminoles. We might cite many notices like the following, cut from the "Raleigh (N.C.) Register," Aug. 20, 1838: —

"On Saturday night, Mr. George Holmes, of this county, and some of his friends were in pursuit of a runaway slave (the property of Mr. Holmes), and fell in with him in attempting to make his escape. Mr. H. discharged a gun at his legs, for the purpose of disabling him; but, unfortunately, the slave stumbled, and the shot struck him near the small of the back, of which wound he died in a short time. The slave continued to run some distance after he was shot, until overtaken by one of the party. We are satisfied from all that we can learn, that Mr. H. had no intention of inflicting a mortal wound."

The hunter, in the following instance, was more skilful or lucky. The advertisement is found in the "Richmond Whig and Public Advertiser," Jan. 25, 1848: —

"$50 Reward. – Ran away from the subscribers, on Sunday, the 8th instant, a negro-man, named George. The said slave is about 21 years of age, black, about 5 feet 6 inches high, weighs about 150 pounds, has good teeth, and a round and likely face. He was purchased at R. H. Dickinson & Bro.'s auction-room, on the 22d of March, last, from Messrs. Millner & Keen, of Pittsylvania Court-house. He was purchased by them (M. & K.) in Rickingham, N.C.; and he will in all probability make for that place, as he ran off last April, and was taken upon his way there, at Amelia Court-house. The person that took him on that occasion shot him with small shot on the legs, and the shot-marks are very perceptible on the hind part or the calves of his legs. We will give $50 for the apprehension and delivery of said boy to R. H. Dickinson & Bro. in Richmond, Va. if taken up after this date; and, if taken up previous to this date, we will pay $25 for his delivery here, and the expense of bringing him to this place from where he may be taken up.

Kelly, Hundley, & Co.

"Richmond, Aug. 27, 1847."

The Rev. Mr. Jones would probably instruct "George," that he was shot because he disobeyed God's commands in running away, and especially because he "robbed God of his own" in breaking the Sabbath! But how judicious was the man who took him up on that occasion! He only shot him with small shot in the legs!

In the "Macon (Ga.) Telegraph," Nov. 27, 1838, we find the following account of a runaway's den, and of the good luck of a "Mr. Adams," in running down one of them "with his excellent dogs: " —

"A runaway's den was discovered on Sunday, near the Washington Spring, in a little patch of woods, where it had been for several months so artfully concealed under ground, that it was detected only by accident, though in sight of two or three houses, and near the road and fields where there has been constant daily passing. The entrance was concealed by a pile of pine straw, representing a hog-bed, which being removed, discovered a trap-door and steps that led to a room about six feet square, comfortably ceiled with plank, containing a small fireplace, the flue of which was ingeniously conducted above ground and concealed by the straw. The inmates took the alarm, and made their escape; but Mr. Adams and his excellent dogs being put upon the trail, soon run down and secured one of them, which proved to be a negro-fellow who had been out about a year. He stated that the other occupant was a woman, who had been a runaway a still longer time. In the den was found a quantity of meal, bacon, corn, potatoes, &c. and various cooking utensils and wearing apparel."

The Lord of the sabbath seems to favor the masters; for Mr. Adams's hunt occurred on Sunday! Many other instances might be given. We adduce only this. The "St. Francisville (La.) Chronicle" of Feb. 1, 1839, gives the following account of a "negro-hunt" in that parish: —

"Two or three days since, a gentleman of this parish, in hunting runaway negroes, came upon a camp of them in the swamp on Cat Island. He succeeded in arresting two of them; but the third made fight, and, upon being shot in the shoulder, fled to a sluice, where the dogs succeeded in drowning him before assistance could arrive."

Does any one say these atrocities must be confined to the extreme South, and that law or public opinion in North Carolina would forbid them? How far otherwise is the fact! The "Revised Statutes" of North Carolina, chap. 111, sec. 22, provide as follows: —

"Whereas, many times slaves run away and lie out, hid and lurking in swamps, woods, and other obscure places, killing cattle and hogs, and committing other injuries to the inhabitants of this State; in all such cases, upon intelligence of any slave or slaves lying out as aforesaid, any two justices of the peace for the county wherein such slave or slaves is or are supposed to lurk or do mischief, shall, and they are hereby empowered and required to issue proclamation against such slave or slaves (reciting his or their names, and the name or names of the owner or owners, if known), thereby requiring him or them, and every of them, forthwith to surrender him or themselves; and also to empower and require the sheriff of the said county to take such power with him as he shall think fit and necessary for going in search and pursuit of, and effectually apprehending, such outlying slave or slaves; which proclamation shall be published at the door of the Court-house, and at such other places as said justices shall direct.[T] And if any slave or slaves against whom proclamation hath been thus issued stay out, and do not immediately return home, it shall be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to kill and destroy such slave or slaves by such ways and means as he shall think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime for the same."

This is truly a Christian law! A written proclamation to men, of whom not one in ten thousand can read a letter of it! – and yet, after publication of it at the door of the Court-house, and at such other places (if any) as the justices may direct, if the slaves do not immediatelyy return, it is lawful for any person to kill and destroy them "by such ways or means as he shall think fit." And may not bloodhounds be the most expeditious and fit?

Is this law a dead letter? Only fifteen days before Bishop Freeman's sermon was delivered, and Bishop Ives enjoyed "most unfeigned pleasure" at the thought that slavery existed as it did in North Carolina, the following proclamation and advertisement appeared in the "Newbern (N.C.) Spectator: " —

"State of North Carolina, Lenoir County. – Whereas complaint hath been this day made to us, two of the justices of the peace for the said county, by William D. Cobb, of Jones county, that two negro-slaves belonging to him, named Ben (commonly known by the name of Ben Fox) and Rigdon, have absented themselves from their said master's service, and are lurking about in the counties of Lenoir and Jones, committing acts of felony; these are, in the name of the State, to command the said slaves forthwith to surrender themselves, and turn home to their said master. And we do hereby also require the sheriff of said county of Lenoir to make diligent search and pursuit after the above-mentioned slaves… And we do hereby, by virtue of an Act of Assembly of this State concerning servants and slaves, intimate and declare, if the said slaves do not surrender themselves and return home to their master immediately after the publication of these presents, that any person may kill or destroy said slaves by such means as he or they think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime or offence for so doing, or without incurring any penalty or forfeiture thereby.

"Given under our hands and seals, this 12th of November, 1838.

B. Coleman, J.P. [Seal.]Jas. Jones, J.P. [Seal.]

"$200 Reward. – Ran away from the subscriber, about three years ago, a certain negro-man, named Ben, commonly known by the name of Ben Fox, also one other negro, by the name of Rigdon, who ran away on the 8th of this month.

"I will give the reward of $100 for each of the above negroes, to be delivered to me, or confined in the jail of Lenoir or Jones County, or for the killing of them, so that I can see them.

W. D. Cobb.

"Nov. 12, 1838."

In what has preceded, we have endeavored to give a faint but true picture of slaveholding as it most generally exists. Though we have purposely left unmentioned many wrongs, we have abundantly supported our conclusion. If, as we have seen, every slave, as a man, has a natural, God-given right to be left free to seek after wisdom, to strive to become pure in heart, to cherish his affections, it is a great wrong deliberately and carefully to close against him all the avenues to knowledge, to refuse him even the rudiments imparted to the child that clings to our knees, to refuse him all moral and religious instruction, or give him such only as is calculated to make him contented with his lot, and more profitable to his oppressors. It is a great wrong – who can conceive a greater? – to deny to a whole race the sacredness of marriage, the blessings of home, the joys of brother and sister, of father and mother, and all the refining, ennobling influences of these relations. It is a great wrong, none can conceive a greater, than to trade in the bodies of men, to higgle in the market-place about the price of our brother, to traffic in our sister's flesh and bones as merchandise. Slaveholding, as it most generally exists, darkens the mind, deadens the soul, and brutalizes the affections, of its victims. It is carefully planned and deliberately executed murder of the soul. No human heart exists, unwarped by self-interest, that does not respond to the poor slave's call for help. We need no new revelation from Heaven, we need no book to tell us, that it would be wrong for any one to darken our minds, to deaden our souls, to brutalize our affections. No more do we need, a new revelation from Heaven to convince us, that all men are brethren; that the slave who toils on the Louisiana plantation is no less our neighbor than the friend whom we have known and loved from boyhood; and that we should love the slaves as ourselves, not with that barren love which consists in saving their souls by imparting to them a still more barren creed, but that love which never wearies, and which sacrifices its own for another's good.

CHAPTER X.

SLAVEHOLDING ALWAYS WRONG

"No seeming of logic can ever convince the American people, that thousands of our slaveholding brethren are not excellent, humane, and even Christian men, fearing God, and keeping his commandments." —Rev. Dr. Joel Parker.

It remains for us to consider the special cases in which slaveholding is thought by many to be right. All slaveholders are not actors in the cruel system which we have just described. There are in the Southern States, we are ready to believe, thousands who disregard the laws, who treat their slaves as humanely as is possible, who cultivate to a considerable extent their mental and moral faculties, and who would unite with us in condemning the barbarities we have been considering.

The Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller, of Beaufort, S.C. thus describes the condition of his slaves ("Domestic Slavery considered as a Scriptural Institution," &c. p. 222; 1845):

"In a familiar correspondence like this, I may be pardoned for saying, that, during twelve years, I have devoted the salary given me, whenever at my disposal, to the spiritual instruction of the slaves, and am now doing so. With reference to my own servants, their condition is as good as I can make it. They are placed under a contract, which no instrument in writing could make more sacred. By this contract, they, on their part, perform not one half the work done by free laborers; and I, on my part, am bound to employ a missionary to teach and catechize them and their children; to provide them a home and clothes and provisions and fuel, and land to plant for themselves; to pay all medical bills; to guaranty to them all the profits of their skill and labor in their own time; to protect them as a guardian, and to administer to the wants of their children, and of those that are sick and infirm and aged. Such is their state; nor have I any idea that they would consent to be removed."

This picture may be deepened as we please. Dr. Fuller, and every slaveholder who is like him, may clothe, feed, and house his slaves as he does himself; he may watch over their mental and moral condition with as much real solicitude as he does that of a child; he may love them almost with a father's love; and yet, notwithstanding all alleviations, it is wrong for him to hold slaves. Slaveholding is always wrong.

It should be constantly borne in mind, that no man can be obliged either to become or continue a slaveholder. No man can make me a slaveholder or a landholder without or against my consent. Indeed, no gift to me of slaves or land is perfect, until I have accepted it. No man need accept an inheritance of slaves, or be a slaveholder any longer than he pleases to be. Where the law of his State permits, he may emancipate his slaves. If manumission is actually or virtually forbidden, he may take his slaves into a Free State; and, by such act alone, they become freemen. With full power, therefore, at any moment to dissolve the relation, Dr. Fuller voluntarily continues to hold slaves. All slaveholding is unnecessary, and none is involuntary on the part of the owner.

It should also be borne in mind, that a slave, under all circumstances, whether he be caressed or scourged, loved or hated, overworked or underworked, instructed or debased, is the property of his master, and, as such, is subject to all the legal incidents of property. Dr. Fuller's slaves are as much Dr. Fuller's property as his horse, his watch, the coat on his back, or the books on the shelves of his library; and, as property, their happy, elevated condition necessarily depends upon the accidents of Dr. Fuller's life, health, and wealth. When these fail, their condition will unquestionably be either very materially affected for the worse, or altogether changed.

And, first, if his wealth should fail from unforeseen calamities; so that from affluence, it may be, he should be reduced to real want, and be unable to pay the just claims of his creditors; the latter may satisfy their claims by a sale of his slaves. Nothing but payment of the debts could prevent such a catastrophe. Equally with his horses and theological library,[U] his slaves would legally constitute a fund out of which his creditors might satisfy their claims. Husband and wife, parent and child, the prattling infant and the old man of seventy winters, might legally be placed upon the auction-block, and sold to the highest bidder, singly or in lots to suit, as might seem most calculated to advance the interest of the creditors. Dr. Fuller's prayers and tears would avail nothing. His kind and humane treatment, continued through so many years, would then increase the market-value of his slaves; and that is all. Nothing that he could do would be able to save them from the auction-block. And what, under such circumstances, would become of their mental, moral, or even their physical condition? There would not be one chance in a thousand that all their new masters would be like Dr. Fuller, or that they would escape the lot of most other slaves, – a state of hopeless degradation!

Does any one say, that, though the law would favor such a sale by creditors, public opinion would not tolerate it? We will not stop to consider how far the law may be regarded as an index of public opinion. We simply ask, If Christian churches may sell slaves at auction, what may not private individuals do consistently with public opinion? We have already given the advertisement for sale by Thomas N. Gadsden, a brother, we believe, of Bishop Gadsden, of South Carolina ("Slavery as it is," p. 174), of a prime gang of negroes belonging to the Independent Church in Christ Church Parish; and we will adduce only one other similar instance. Few, if any, theological bodies at the South seem to have devoted more time, attention, and money to elevating the moral character of the slaves than the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia; and yet the Board of Directors of its Theological Seminary do not scruple to invest the funds of the institution in slaves, or to sell them by auction in order to obtain repayment of a loan. The "Savannah (Ga.) Republican" of March 3, 1845, contains an advertisement, of which the following is an extract: —

"Will be Sold, on the first Tuesday in March, in front of the Court-house, in the city of Darien, Georgia, between the legal hours of sale, the following negro-slaves, i. e. Charles, Peggy, Antonett, Davy, September, Maria, Jenny, and Isaac, levied on as the property of Henry T. Hall, to satisfy a mortgage, fi. fa., issued out of the M'Intosh Superior Court in favor of the Board of Directors of the Theological Seminary of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, against said Henry T. Hall. – Conditions cash.

C. O'Neal, Deputy-sheriff, M.C."

Suppose Dr. Fuller should become insane, or otherwise unfit to manage his own affairs. Such cases often occur. Then the control of the slaves would pass with his other property into other hands. What would insure their continued mental and moral well-being? The law would not, – public opinion would not! Every thing would depend on the character of the legal guardian or trustee; and even this could afford no adequate protection. The law permits an owner to do many things which it would not suffer a guardian or a trustee to do. The legal guardian of Dr. Fuller's estate would hardly be allowed to suffer his slaves to "perform not one half the work done by free laborers." The guardian's rule of conduct would be the law, and the common mode of treatment in the community. If he overstepped this line, and any pecuniary loss should be the consequence, the loss would fall on him personally. How many guardians or trustees would be willing to run any risk of a criminal prosecution or a fine or imprisonment, in order to insure the happy condition of anther's man property? Not one in ten thousand! And yet, unless his guardian was willing to do this, – unless he was willing to brave the law, and act contrary to the general customs of society, Dr. Fuller's slaves would very soon lapse into the same degraded condition in which the slaves about them commonly live. Nothing would be more likely than to find Dr. Fuller's guardian advertising in the following manner: —

"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."

"Negro Hirings. – Will be offered for hire, at Capt. Long's Hotel, a number of slaves, men, women, boys, and girls, belonging to the orphans of George Ash, deceased.

Richard W. Barton, Guardian."

The law forbids teaching slaves to read and write. Dr. Fuller may disregard the law, and give his slaves careful instruction, supplying them with plenty of books, and allowing them time to read in. The law denies marriage to the slaves, and pays no heed to their family ties. Dr. Fuller may consecrate with the utmost care the marriage of his slaves, and sacredly protect their family relations. The law declares slaves to be, under all circumstances, saleable articles. Dr. Fuller may think that he treats them as men, and shudder at the thought of selling them. Thus may he do in his lifetime; but it is appointed unto all men to die; and what, in the event of his death, will become of his slaves?