Front matter (continued 3)

We have no data from which to infer the number of planters who go South with their slaves. But, allowing that five hundred thus remove, and that on an average they have ten slaves each (proper estimates we believe), we have left thirty-five thousand as the number of human beings who are every year sold to the speculators in human flesh!

Now, Mr. Barnes's "lot" of his fellow-creatures averaged in value over five hundred dollars apiece; and those were times when, from his account, the market was glutted, and the prices accordingly low. "Young and likely" negroes are more easily acclimated, and are better able to work, than others. Consequently, they are the ones most sought after by judicious traders. We should consider five hundred dollars for a young, healthy negro, warranted sound, as really a low price. But, if we suppose the slaves annually exported to be worth less than any of Mr. Barnes's lot,—considering them as worth only $450 apiece,—we have, as the sums of money every year invested in the trade in slaves, the very moderate sum of fifteen millions seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars! This is exclusive of the cost of all the private jails, of transportation by sea and land, food, wages of drivers, &c.; which cannot but very largely increase this sum. This sum, $15,750,000, would, in less than three years, double the number of miles of railroad which were in operation in all the Southern States in 1846 (Parker's "Letter on Slavery," p. 52). It would, in only two years, more than double in length all the railroads which were then in operation in all the Slave States, except Maryland. It costs every year five millions more to carry on the domestic slave-trade than it does to fit out and victual all the whale-ships of the United States! ("American Almanac, 1843," p. 178.) Over one fifth of the entire value of the cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco raised in the fifteen Slave States in 1839, and over one third of the value of articles manufactured in the South, was invested in slaves! Nearly twice as many slaves are carried South and West every year as there are men in all the Slave States engaged in the learned professions!—so terribly prominent is this trade in men and women! Who will venture to conceive, much less express, the deep degradation which must be caused by a trade of such fearful character and magnitude;—degradation not only to the immediate sufferers, but to all those who may be subjected to it?

CHAPTER IX.

RUNAWAY SLAVES.

"It is contrary also to the will of God for servants either to run away, or harbor a runaway"—Rev. C. C. Jones's Teaching to Slaves.

The treatment which runaway slaves receive cannot but greatly degrade them. Pious as well as worldly masters consider that their slaves have no more right to run away than their horses or mules. The Christian slaveholder orally teaches his slaves, that, by taking this step, they sin in the sight of God; for has not Paul most emphatically condemned the practice? So careful is he of the souls of those whom God has committed to his charge!

We frequently find advertisements similar to this, cut from the "American Beacon" (Norfolk, Va.), Jan. 24, 1848:—

"$50 Reward.—Stop Ruffin and Wyatt.—These men left my house on Saturday night, January 15, 1848, without any provocation. They have uniformly maintained a good character for honesty, industry, and sobriety,—were obedient and trustworthy servants, and no severity nor threats had been offered towards them; and I very much fear they have left for some Northern State.

· · · · · ·

"These slaves were originally owned in Surry, and possibly may be in the vicinity of their relatives.

George N. Hatch.

"Gaysville, P.O. Prince George County, Va."

Good Mr. Bryant Johnson is very much more indignant. In the "Macon (Georgia) Telegraph," May 28, is the following:—

"About the first of March last, the negro-man, Ransom, left me without the least provocation whatever. I will give a reward of $20 for said negro if taken, dead or alive; and, if killed in any attempt, an advance of $5 will be paid.

Bryant Johnson.

"Crawford County, Georgia."

In the extremity of his wrath, he cannot think of the least provocation whatever which he has given his slave. But we confess we are much more touched by friend Hatch's advertisement. Simple-minded creature! He evidently speaks more in sorrow and astonishment than in anger. Doubtless he had uniformly fed, clothed, and housed his servants well, and had never been severe with or threatened them. How could they desire to leave him? They have run away without any provocation! So unnatural, almost impossible, in the eyes of masters, is any spark of manliness in a slave! They cannot conceive it possible for a manly love of liberty to provoke a favored negro to run away. Still, however, even favored servants are continually escaping from their happy state; and, by the methods adopted to retake them, they are most efficiently taught that they have no more rights than has a favored hound or a valued horse. Their manliness is crushed, until at last they really feel themselves to be little else than items of profit or loss to their owners. The old slave who, at the point of death, was asked whether he was not sorry to die, and who replied, "Oh! no: the loss is massa's," had very faithfully improved the instruction imparted to his class.

If our horse is stolen from his stable, or our cow strays from her pasture, we advertise them as "strayed or stolen." If a slave runs away, his master advertises him, and offers a reward for his capture. If he is found, the lucky finder deposits him in jail for safe keeping, to await a favorable opportunity of sending him back to his master,—of course, like Onesimus, as a brother beloved. The jailer gets his legal fees, the finder gets his reward, the master gets his slave, and the slave most generally receives some "moderate correction" from the cowskin or the paddle. If he will not listen to the teaching of God's messengers to his soul, who are continually repeating to him (Jones's "Rel. Inst." 188) "a servant who knows his master's duty, and will not do it, must be made to do it," how can he complain of his treatment?

So anxious are they at the South that every poor African should have a good, kind master to attend to the wants of his soul, and support him in old age, that, if a stray negro is taken up running at large without an apparent owner, and for any cause he cannot legally prove his freedom, even though he does really own himself, he is nevertheless advertised, and sold at auction to the highest bidder, to pay the expenses occasioned by his own capture and detention. How happy must be the people that are in such a case! Yea, blessed is his condition whose body is fed and whipped, whose soul is saved and darkened, by his brother man!

The "Revised Statutes" of North Carolina, chap. 111, sec. 11, provides that,—

"If any negro who shall be taken up as a runaway, and brought before any justice of the peace, will not declare the name of his or her owner, such justice shall in such case, and he is hereby required, by a warrant under his hand, to commit the said negro-slave to the jail of the county wherein he or she shall be taken up; and the sheriff or undersheriff of the county into whose custody the said runaway shall be committed, shall forthwith cause notice in writing of such commitment to be set up on the Court-house door of the said county, and there continued during the space of two months; in which notice a full description of the said runaway and his clothing shall be particularly set down."—When the owner is supposed to be a resident in another State, the jailer is obliged by sec. 15, "by the first opportunity after such commitment, to send a description of such negro or runaway, together with the account of the time of commitment, and the county where such runaway is committed, to the press, to be advertised in the State Gazette."—Sec. 16 provides, that, "whenever any negro-slave shall be taken up in this State as a runaway, and confined in any jail for the space of twelve months, and the apprehension and confinement of said slave have been advertised in the State Gazette at least six months, and the owner does not apply to prove property in said time, then it shall be lawful for the court of pleas and quarter sessions of the county in which said runaway is confined, to command their sheriff to expose said negro-slave to public sale for ready money, giving three months' notice in some public newspaper in this State, at the Court-house door, and at two other public places in the said county, of the time and place of sale, and of the circumstances under which the said slave is to be sold."—Sect. 17 gives the sheriff "two and a half per centum on the amount of sale."—Sect. 18 declares that "the bill of sale of the sheriff shall vest in the purchaser an absolute right to the said slave." The residue of the amount of sales, after deducting commissions and prison charges, is directed to be paid to the county trustee for the use of the county.

Similar laws, authorizing the sale into slavery of negroes taken up as runaway slaves, who cannot from any cause prove their freedom, are found in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. A similar law has always existed in the District of Columbia, originally enacted, and since supported, by Northern freemen. Our law, however, differs from the others in offering to the marshal a high bribe to induce him to sell free negroes, by providing that the proceeds of the persons sold may remain in his own pocket, unless after the sale the master shall be discovered, and shall claim the balance.

Throughout all the Slave States, the law presumes every free negro to be a slave, until he can legally prove his freedom. Consequently, every free negro, out of his own neighborhood, is presumed to be, and treated as, a runaway slave, until he can establish his freedom. Under laws of this kind, many free negroes are taken; and, if from want of money or friends, or distance from home, or any other cause, they cannot prove their freedom, as no owner can come forward and "claim property and pay charges," they must necessarily be sold into slavery for life!

Very recently, in the columns of the "Washington Union," appeared the following notices:—

"Notice.—Was committed to the jail of Washington County, D.C. on the 5th July, 1846, as a runaway, a negro-man, who calls himself John Crew. He is black, about 5 feet 6½ inches high, and about 43 years of age. He says he is free, and was born in Hanover County, Virginia, and was set free by Mrs. Allen, formerly Mrs. Watson, of said county; and that he lived with Jude & Muir, in Richmond, Virginia; and that he obtained his free papers in Richmond in 1823, when a Mr. Henning was clerk of the court. He has had right leg broken, which has left a large scar on it. He has a scar on the right side of his neck, which he says he has received since he left Richmond.

"The owner or owners of the above-described negro-man are hereby required to come forward, prove him, and take him away, or he will be sold for his prison and other expenses, as the law directs.

Robt. Ball, Jailer for A. Hunter, Marshal.

"Aug. 15."

"Notice.—Was committed to the jail of Washington County, D.C. on the 23d of July, 1847, as a runaway, a negro-woman, who calls herself Ann E. Hodges. She is nearly black, about 5 feet 5¼ inches high, and about 22 years of age. Had on, when committed, a slate-colored Merino dress and a brown calico sun-bonnet. She says she is free, and served her time out with a Mr. Benjamin Daltry, of Southampton, Va.; and that Messrs. Griffin & Bishop, of the same place, know her to be free. She has two scars on the left leg, near the knee, from the bite of a dog, one on her left wrist, and one on the point of her breast-bone, occasioned by a burn.

"The owner or owners of the above-described negro-woman are hereby required to come forward, prove her, and take her away, or she will be sold for her prison and other expenses, as the law directs.

Robt. Ball, Jailer, for A. Hunter, Marshal.

"Aug. 23."

Here is another instance, which happened several years since:—

"Notice.—Was committed to the jail of Washington County, District of Columbia, as a runaway, a negro-woman, by the name of Polly Leiper, and her infant child, William.... Says she was set free by John Campbell, of Richmond, Va. in 1818 or 1819. The owner of the above-described woman and child, if any, are requested to come and prove them, and take them away, or they will be sold for their jail fees and other expenses, as the law directs.

Tench Ringgold, Marshal.

"May 29, 1827."

Many other similar ones might be cited from papers published in the District. The following is taken from the "Mobile (Ala.) Register" of July 21, 1837:—

"Will be Sold Cheap for Cash, in front of the Court-house of Mobile County, on the 22d day of July next, one mulatto-man, named Henry Hale, who says he is free. His owner or owners, if any, having failed to demand him, he is to be sold according to the statute in such case made and provided, to pay jail fees.

William Magee, Shff. M.C."

Here are two from the "Vicksburg (Miss.) Register." The first is the notice of the committal of a negro. The second is the advertisement for his sale:—

"Sheriff's Sale.—Committed to the jail of Warren County, as a runaway, on the 23d inst. a negro-man, who calls himself John J. Robinson; says that he is free; says that he kept a baker's shop in Columbus, Miss. and that he peddled through the Chickasaw nation to Pontotoc, and came to Memphis, where he sold his horse, took water, and came to this place. The owner of said boy is requested to come forward, prove property, pay charges, and take him away, or he will be dealt with as the law directs.

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?

He may possibly leave a will, bequeathing them, upon the condition that his kind and humane treatment shall be continued, that they shall be taught to read and write, that their marriages and family relations shall be sacredly respected, and that they shall never be subject to be sold; that is, on the condition that his legatees shall break the law, as he has done. The only result will be, that the law will declare all such conditions to be utterly void; and the legatees will own the slaves, entirely freed from all such conditions. The legatees will be under no other restraints than those imposed by the law, public opinion, and their own conscience. The latter restraint only may possibly avail the slaves; and their happy condition may be continued, if all the legatees are, like Dr. Fuller, law-defying, humane, kind-hearted, and above want! But how unlikely is it that such will be the case! How much more unlikely is it that such a state of things will continue! And yet, unless such a state of things exists, and continues to exist, Dr. Fuller's slaves must inevitably become as degraded as the great mass of their fellows.

If he should die intestate, then his slaves, as part of his estate, would have to be duly administered on and distributed among the heirs-at-law. The administrator, a mere trustee, could not, as we have seen, safely continue Dr. Fuller's plan of management; nor can it be supposed that any administrator would follow it. If it became necessary or expedient in order to pay debts, husbands would be separated from wives, parents from children, and brothers from sisters. The widow (if any) would be entitled to a life-estate in one-third of the slaves, which one-third would be assigned to her in severalty, even though this might involve a separation of families; for the common law of the Slave States makes the same profession as the common law of England, that it favors three things,—life, liberty, and dower! The remaining slaves, and the reversion of those assigned to the widow, would belong to the heirs, and would have to be equally divided between them, not divided by families, or even per capita, but so that each heir should have an equally valuable slave-investment, or an equal share in the property of the deceased. If the heirs should be numerous, or the slaves few, so that an equal division of them could not be thus made, they would have to be sold, and their proceeds equally divided. Such sales must be common. The following is taken from the "Georgia Journal:"—

"To be Sold,—One negro-girl, about 18 months old, belonging to the estate of William Chambers, deceased. Sold for the purpose of distribution.

Jethro Dean⎫

⎬Executors."

Samuel Beall⎭

How often are heirs needy! How very seldom are they actuated by the same spirit or governed by the same views as their ancestor! Some of them might be under age, and legally incapable of acting for themselves; and yet here, as in the other case, unless the widow and heirs-at-law should be all of full age, ready to break the law of the State, and humane, kind-hearted, and above want, like Dr. Fuller, his slaves could not escape the common degradation of their fellows. How extremely improbable is it that such would be the situation of the widow and all the heirs! How much more improbable is it that such a state of things would continue! How much more likely is it that we should find some of the heirs disliking an investment in slaves, or wishing to be disembarrassed of their care, or desirous to reduce their stock of negroes, and accordingly selling their portion of Dr. Fuller's slaves at auction! In the "Charleston (S.C.) Mercury" of Sept. 1, 1847, we find the following:—

"For Sale,—A young and healthy negro-woman, about 24 years of age, with her two children, a boy between 5 and 6 years, and an infant, 6 months old. Sold for no fault but to change the property. Apply at this office."

This is from the "New Orleans Commercial Bulletin" of August 27, 1847:—

"Desirable Virginia House-servant.—By Beard, Calhoun, & Co. Saturday, 28th inst. at 12 o'clock, will be sold at auction, at Banks's Arcade, the Griffe servant, Lucy, 19 years; a trusty house-girl, of fine character, washer, ironer, and American cook, and sews remarkably well. Sold for no fault, as her owner is leaving the city. Fully guarantied against the vices and maladies prescribed by law.—Terms cash. Act of sale before J. R. Beard, notary public, at the expense of purchaser."

The "National Intelligencer" of August 1, 1848, contains the following:—

"Valuable Servant at Private Sale.—We have for sale a valuable servant-girl, aged about 17 years. She is an excellent house-servant. Sold for no fault; the owner about removing to the country.

Ed. C. & G. F. Dyer, Auctioneers and Commission Merchants."

The same paper of January 20, 1844, contains the following:—

"For Sale,—Two likely mulatto women; one middle-aged, an excellent cook, washer, and ironer, and a good seamstress; the other young, and a good seamstress and house-servant; and both capable of doing any work required in a family. They are sold on account of the owner not having sufficient employment.—Apply to Mr. Henry Trunnel, Georgetown."

In the same paper, Nov. 2, 1844, we find this:—

"A Negro-boy for Sale or Hire.—A boy, 16 years old, well-grown and active, is for sale, but not to a trader. He has been employed in attending to horses, driving a carriage, working in a garden, &c. and will be sold only because the owner has too many servants. He may be had on trial.—Apply at J. B. Holmead's Auction Rooms."

The boy is not to be sold to a trader; but there can be no security that the purchaser will not thus sell him.

The "Spirit of Liberty" contains a notice, from "Scott's Intelligence Office," of the sale of three negro girls, aged 10, 19, and 16 years respectively, and a boy 14 years old. The notice states, "All the above servants are sold for no faults, and are just from the country, consigned to me for sale by their owners, who recommend them very highly; they wish to reduce their stock of negroes is the cause of their being in the market for sale."

Perhaps some one or more of Dr. Fuller's heirs may be indebted. What, in such case, will prevent a creditor from levying on an undivided share of Dr. Fuller's happy slaves? Perhaps the debtor may wish to convey his property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors. We take the following advertisement from the "National Anti-Slavery Standard," April 15, 1847:—

"Trustee's Sale.—Plantation and negroes in Washington County, Mississippi; and Yazoo city town lot and buildings. On Monday, the first of February, 1847, I will proceed to sell, by virtue of a certain deed of trust, executed 10th May, 1845, by Thomas J. Reed, to me, as trustee, and duly recorded in the proper county, and at the special instance and request of the creditors named in said deed, at public sale, to the highest bidder, for cash, on the premises, the following described lands, situated, lying, and being in the county of Washington, and State of Mississippi, and described as follows, to wit:—

"Section No. 3, &c. &c.

"Also one undivided half of the following named negroes, slaves for life, held jointly with the heirs of Baine, viz. Sophia, aged 45; Nancy, 35; Queen, 40; Jane, 19; Rachel, 11; Priscella; Jenny, 60; Maria, 30; Lydia, 30; Amanda, 22; Edna, 30; Vina, 36; Betsy, 35; Ellen, 9; Peyton, 8; Bob, 4; Louis, 15; Chub, 8; Horace, 6; Louisa, 1; Jim, jr. 4; Mary, 4½; Harriet, 6; Dick, 9; George, 5; Billy, 50; John Brown, 36; Alexander, 40; Louis Johnson, 62; Hatton, 35; Jim, sen. 42; Frank, 50; John, jr. or Little John, 16; John Mitchell, 47; Louis Davis, 40; Warren, 40; Ben, 36; Oliver, 40; Louis, jr. or Charles Louis, 5; Lawson, 35; Sam, 19; Harvey, 21; Fleming, 6; Amy, 4; Bonaparte, 3; Catherine (Queen's child), 2.

"And further, all the right, title, and interest of said Reed in and to the following named slaves, to wit, Henny and her three children, Dick, Jane, and Peter; together with all the stock of horses, cattle, mules, hogs, and farming implements appertaining to said tracts of land, which is believed to be an entire estate in fee.

"The above sale will be for cash, and I will convey to the purchaser only such title as is vested in me by said deed of trust.

W. S. Mott.

"No postponement on account of the weather."

Other cases might doubtless be put; but these are sufficient to enable us to test the question of right and wrong. And no labored argument is necessary. Dr. Fuller admits (what we have already proved) that slaveholding is most generally wrong, because it is accompanied by the mental and moral degradation of the slaves. But, by voluntarily retaining the ownership of his slaves, he renders just such a degradation almost inevitable even for them. Without the slightest necessity for so doing, and solely because he wishes so to do, he renders almost certain the hopeless degradation of his fellow-man. Such conduct cannot be right, even though (as doubtless in his case) pursued from right motives. No one has the right unnecessarily to impede our spiritual or mental culture, even in the slightest degree,—much less unnecessarily to expose us, almost certainly, to hopeless degradation. No more have we the right, by holding our fellows in slavery, to render almost inevitable the death of their souls.

Slaveholding, then, is always wrong, because it either deliberately murders the souls of its victims, or else renders such spiritual death almost inevitable. Nor is slaveholding ever made right by the fact that the slaves will not consent to be emancipated; for no man can rightfully consent to his own degradation. What man would consent to become even the favored slave of Dr. Fuller?

CHAPTER XI.

THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS INTERPRETATION.

The Constitution is not what it ought to be, not what we wish it to be; not what is consistent with sound morals, but simply what its words meant in 1789,—nothing more, nothing less.

The Constitution of the United States was drawn up by a Convention, of which Washington was president. The people, assembled in their State Conventions, adopted the draft, because it aptly expressed the kind of union they wished to have, because it fully and exactly expressed their meaning. In order, therefore, to ascertain the character of our political union with the Slave States, we have only to ascertain the true meaning of the words of the Constitution, or their plain, obvious, and common meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted. Every writer who wishes to be understood uses his words in their usual signification. Every one supposes that we mean just what our words commonly mean now. When we read Chaucer, or Shakspeare, or Dr. Johnson, we understand him to mean just what his words commonly meant at the time he wrote, unless such meaning is repelled or qualified by the context, in which case we adopt this new or qualified meaning. In like manner, the people of the United States are to be understood to mean, by the words of the Constitution, just what those words commonly meant when the Constitution was adopted, unless such meaning is repelled or qualified by the context; in which case, a regard for truth obliges us to adopt this new or qualified meaning.

This simple, true, and universally practised rule is thus laid down by Judge Story (Comm. on Const. Abr. § 210):—

"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss."—Sec. 212: "Where technical words are used, the technical meaning is to be applied to them, unless it is repelled by the context. But the same word often possesses a technical and a common sense. In such a case, the latter is to be preferred, unless some attendant circumstance points clearly to the former."

The Constitution was also framed and adopted with reference to the actual political, social, and local condition of the people. It grew out of their wants and wishes. The steps which finally led to its adoption grew out of one of the many defects in the articles of confederation. Consequently, to arrive at the true meaning of the Constitution, we must bear in mind the political, social, and local condition of the people at the time of its adoption, and, among many other similar facts, the very general existence of domestic slavery.[V]

Keeping in view these, the very simplest rules of interpretation, we will show what the Constitution is according to the common meaning of its terms; what its framers intended to make it; what, in point of fact, it has been considered to be in the practice of the government; and, finally, what it has been adjudged to mean by that body which it has itself pointed out as the final arbiter of its meaning. And, if all these unite in giving the Constitution but one character, we, as reasonable men, seeking the truth, cannot deny that such is its true character.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO THE COMMON MEANING OF ITS TERMS.

The people made it, the people adopted it, the people must be supposed to read it with the help of common sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in it any hidden or extraordinary meaning.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, slavery existed in all the States except Massachusetts. How far, if at all, does this instrument support or countenance the institution?

Art. 1, sec. 2: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."

By this section, persons are divided into those who are free and those who are slaves; for to the whole number of free persons are to be added three-fifths of all other persons, that is, persons not free, or slaves. If we adopt the plain, obvious, and common meaning of the words as their true meaning, this conclusion is incontrovertible.

It is sometimes urged, that by "free person" is meant "citizen." But the expression cannot be taken in any such technical sense. Under the expression "free persons" are included those bound to service for a term of years, and therefore from it are excluded those bound to service for life, or slaves.

This article, therefore, recognizes slavery as explicitly as if the word slave itself had been used, and gives to the free persons in a Slave State, solely because they are slaveholders, a larger representation, and consequently greater political power, than the same number of free persons in a Free State. A BOUNTY ON SLAVEHOLDING!

Art. 1, sec. 9: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

It is clear that this section recognizes a difference between the meaning of migration and importation, since, if both words mean the same thing, no reason whatever can be assigned why a tax is not permitted in both cases. This difference, whatever it is, must afford a good reason why persons imported may be taxed, and persons migrating not. The true meaning of the section seems obvious. A person who migrates does so of his own accord: he cannot be said to be migrated by any other person. He is wholly a free agent. A person who is imported does not import himself, but is imported by some other person. He is passive. The importer is the free agent; the person imported is not a free agent. Thus the slave-laws of Virginia of 1748[W] and 1753[X] begin—"All persons who have been or shall be imported," &c. &c. "shall be accounted and be slaves." Whenever we hear an importation spoken of, we instantly infer an importer, an owner, and property imported. This distinction between the meaning of the two words is, then, real. It affords a good reason for the restriction on the right to tax. Therefore, we say, it is the true distinction. On our construction, Congress had power to lay a tax on persons imported as property or slaves, but had no right to tax free persons migrating.

By this clause, therefore, Congress was prevented, during twenty years, from prohibiting the foreign slave-trade with any State that pleased to allow it. But, by Art. 1, sec. 8, Congress had the general power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." Consequently, the slave-trade was excepted from the operation of the general power, with a view to place the slave-trade, during twenty years, solely under the control of the Slave States. It could not be wholly stopped, so long as one State wished to continue it. It is a clear compromise in favor of slavery. True, the compromise was a temporary one; but it will be noticed, that Congress, even after 1808, was not obliged to prohibit the trade; and, in point of fact, until 1819 the laws of Congress authorized the States to sell into slavery, for their own benefit, negroes imported contrary to the laws of the United States! (Act Congr. 1807, c. 77, § 4, 6; 1818, c. 86, § 5 and 7; 10 Wheat. Rep. 321, 322.) So unmixed should be our satisfaction at the oft-repeated boast, that ours was the first nation to prohibit the African slave-trade!

Art. 4, sec. 2: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

The time of holding not being limited, the expression here used must include not only persons held to service or labor for a term of years, but also those held to service or labor for life. Consequently, it includes those who are free persons within the meaning of Art. 1, sec. 2, and slaves or persons held to service or labor for life.

That the expression "person held to service or labor" was a correct definition of the condition of a slave, at the time the Constitution was adopted, is evident. The sixth article of the North-western ordinance reads thus: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always, that, any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." In other words, the expression "a person from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed" so correctly described the condition of a slave, that Congress deemed it necessary to except such persons from the operation of an article relating only to slaves. In less than three months after the passage of this ordinance, this clause in the Constitution was drafted. It needs no argument to show, that the expression in the Constitution means the same as that in the ordinance. "A person from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States" means the same as "a person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof." If the former correctly described the condition of a slave, the latter did also.

We can, however, see that the expression does properly describe the legal condition of a slave. A slave, though an article of property, has always and in every State been recognized as a person, by being held criminally responsible for his acts. Thus the preamble to the Act of South Carolina (May 10, 1740; 1 Grimke's Laws, 165), which provides for the trial of slaves, recites that "natural justice forbids that any person, of what condition soever, should be condemned unheard;" and the Act of Georgia of 1770 (Prince's Dig. 777) provides for the trial of "slaves and other persons." The Act of Virginia (1748, sec. 15; 5 Hen. Stat. 547) and North Carolina (1741, sec. 29; Iredell, Stat. 62-66) call runaway slaves persons in so many words. Similar laws might be cited, if deemed necessary. A slave is also held to labor and service for life by law. Labor and service are the lot of every slave. "To slave" means "to toil." It is sometimes denied, but nevertheless it is true, that the law recognizes that labor and service are legally due from the slave to his master. Thus the Act of North Carolina (1741, sec. 27), before quoted, makes it a criminal offence to tempt or persuade a slave to leave his master's "service." "Service" is recognized as being legally due from a slave in Virginia (Act 1691, 3 Hen. Stat. 86, 87). The Provincial Assembly of South Carolina (Act 1740, sec. 44) provided that,—

"If any owner of slaves, or other person who shall have the care, management, or overseeing of any slaves, shall work, or put any such slave or slaves to labor, more than fifteen hours in twenty-four hours, from the twenty-fifth day of March to the twenty-fifth day of September, or more than fourteen hours in twenty-four hours, from the twenty-fifth day of September to the twenty-fifth day of March, every such person shall forfeit any sum not exceeding twenty pounds, nor under five pounds, current money for every time he, she, or they shall offend herein, at the discretion of the justice before whom the complaint shall be made."

The Provincial Assembly of Georgia (Act 1770, May 10, sec. 41) provided that,—

"If any person shall, on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, employ any slave in any work or labor (works of absolute necessity and the necessary occasions of the family only excepted), every person so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten shillings for every slave he, she, or they shall so cause to work or labor."

A similar law was passed in South Carolina (Act 1740, sec. 22). These and similar laws, by limiting the hours of daily work and labor, or by providing that work and labor shall not be demanded of a slave on Sunday, recognize that on other days, and within certain hours, a master may legally demand them. That which may be legally demanded is legally due. Therefore, work and labor, or service, are legally due from the slave to his master. To this labor and service the slave is "held" by the law. If he refuses to work, his master may coerce him. If he runs away, his master may pursue and retake him legally. He is "held for life," or until emancipated according to law. Consequently, the expression in the Constitution correctly describes the condition of a slave. Indeed, it more correctly describes this condition than "chattel personal" would, because it is the almost universal practice to treat a slave in many important particulars, such as dower, &c. like real property; and, in some States, slaves are declared by statute to be real estate.

By this section, therefore, it is provided that no person held as a slave in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from his slavery, but shall be delivered up on claim of his owner. The laws of one State, whether they support slavery or any other institution, have no power in another State. Consequently, if a slave escapes into a Free State, he becomes free. This is the general rule of law. In virtue of it, thousands of slaves are now free on the soil of Canada. In virtue of it, a fugitive slave from South Carolina would be free in this State, were it not for this section in the Constitution. But this section declares that he shall not thereby become free, but shall be delivered up. Again, the Constitution makes an exception from a general rule of law in favor of slavery. It gives to slaveholders, and slave-laws, a power which the general rule of law does not give. It enables a South Carolina slaveholder to drag from the soil of Massachusetts a person whom the general rule of law pronounces free, solely because South Carolina laws declare the contrary. It makes the whole Union a vast hunting-ground for slaves! There is not a single spot from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the St. John's to the Rio del Norte, or "wheresoe'er may be the fleeting boundary of this republic," on which a fugitive slave may rest, and his owner may not, in virtue of this clause, claim and retake him as his slave!

Art. 1, sec. 8: "Congress shall have power ... to provide for calling forth the militia ... to suppress insurrections."

Art. 4, sec. 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence."

All insurrections and all cases of domestic violence are here provided for. To constitute an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution, there must be a rising against those laws which are recognized as such by the Constitution; and, to make out a case of domestic violence, the violence must be exerted against that right or power which is recognized by the Constitution as lawful. But, by Art. 4, sec. 2, the Constitution admits that some persons are legally slaves; else the clause itself must be entirely inoperative. Consequently, if these persons rise in rebellion, or commit acts of violence contrary to the laws which hold them in slavery, their rising constitutes an insurrection; such acts are acts of violence within the meaning of the Constitution, and consequently must be suppressed by the national power. And what insurrections were more likely to happen and more to be dreaded than slave-insurrections, and therefore more likely to have been provided for?

Slave-owners are not the only slaveholders. All persons who voluntarily assist or pledge themselves to assist in holding persons in slavery are slaveholders. In sober truth, then, we are a nation of slaveholders! for we have bound our whole national strength to the slave-owners, to aid them, if necessary, in holding their slaves in subjection!

CHAPTER XIII.

THE CONSTITUTION AS ITS FRAMERS INTENDED TO MAKE IT.

"Yes!—it cannot be denied—the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves."—John Quincy Adams.

The question, What kind of a Constitution did its framers intend to make? is purely an historical one; and it must be obvious to all, that any thing like a complete statement of the evidence on this point cannot be given within the limits of this pamphlet.

On the 17th of September, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention adopted the plan of the present Constitution. The draft thus made was submitted to the people, assembled in State Conventions, "for their assent and ratification." President Madison has preserved a record of the debates in the Philadelphia Convention; and we have also published accounts of the debates in several of the State Conventions. We draw our evidence mainly from these sources.

Apportionment of Representatives. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 2.)

On the 18th of April, 1783, the Continental Congress passed a resolve, recommending the States to amend the Articles of Confederation in such manner that the national expenses should be defrayed out of a common treasury, "which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the whole number of white or other free inhabitants, of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes, in each State." This amendment was adopted by eleven out of the thirteen States.

A single glance is sufficient to satisfy any one, that, under the expression in this resolve, "all other persons," slaves were intended; and an equally cursory glance suffices to show, that Art. 1, sec. 2, of the Constitution is derived, almost copied, from this resolve. Did not the framers of the Constitution, in adopting the same expression (Art. 1, sec. 2), mean the same thing as the Continental Congress?

In the Massachusetts Convention, Art. 1, sec. 2, of the Constitution having been read, Rufus King, one of its framers, rose to explain it:—

"This paragraph states, that the number of free persons shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. These persons are the slaves. By this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned, and it was adopted because it was the language of all America....

Five negro-children of South Carolina are to pay as much tax as the three governors of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut."

In the New York Convention, Alexander Hamilton, another of the framers, remarked:—

"The first thing objected to is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes....

"The regulation complained of was one result of the spirit of accommodation which governed the Convention; and, without this indulgence, no union could possibly have been formed."

In the Pennsylvania Convention, James Wilson, another of the framers, said, referring to the resolve of the Continental Congress passed in 1783:—

"It was not carried into effect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven out of thirteen States; and it cannot but be matter of surprise to hear gentlemen, who agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward, and state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural, sir, for the late Convention to adopt the mode after it had been agreed to by eleven States, and to use the expression which they found had been received as unexceptionable before."

In a speech before the legislature of Maryland, Luther Martin, also a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, offers the following clear and unmistakable testimony:—

"With respect to that part of the second section of the first article, it was urged that no principle could justify taking slaves into computation in apportioning the number of representatives a State should have in the government;—that it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a State in making laws for freemen, in proportion as that State violated the rights of freedom;—that it might be proper to take slaves into consideration, when taxes were to be apportioned, because it had a tendency to discourage slavery; but to take them into account in giving representation tended to encourage the slave-trade, and to make it the interest of the States to continue that infamous traffic."

In the North Carolina Convention, Wm. R. Davie, a member of the Convention who framed the Constitution, said:—

"The Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses were equally entitled to representation; that the one was property as well as the other. It became our duty, on the other hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the legislation of the Union; and, as the Northern States were more populous in whites, this only could be done by insisting that a certain proportion of our slaves should make a part of the computed population."

In the South Carolina Convention, General Chas. C. Pinckney, another of the framers of the Constitution, said:—

"We were at a loss for some time for a rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States. At last we thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule for ascertaining their wealth. In conformity to this rule, joined to a spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be apportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of free persons, three-fifths of the slaves."

Permission of the African Slave-trade. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 9.)

In the Massachusetts Convention, Mr. Dawes, speaking in relation to Art. 1, sec. 2, said that—

"Gentlemen would do well to connect the passage in dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of slaves, and in the meantime to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on such blacks as should be imported before that period."

Many persons spoke in the Convention on this section; and, among others, Judge Dana rejoiced that a door was opened by it for the annihilation of the slave-trade.

In the Pennsylvania Convention, Mr. Wilson said:—

"Under the present confederation, the States may admit the importation of slaves as long as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any State to the contrary.... It is with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government, whereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is also obtained; for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition. It was all that could be obtained: I am sorry it was no more."

In Maryland, Luther Martin, in the speech before referred to, says, speaking of this section:—

"The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word 'national,' and not admit the word 'stamps,' influenced them here to guard against the word 'slaves.' They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those things which the expressions signified."

Mr. Martin thus gives the well-known history of the compromise involved in this clause:—

"This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States; Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina, voting for it.

"We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that their States would never agree to a system which put it in the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves; and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their assent from such a system.

"A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report which should reconcile those States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: 'No Navigation Act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each house;'—a proposition which the staple and commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met, and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the Southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave-trade, provided the Southern States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on Navigation Acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restricted clause relative to Navigation Acts was to be omitted.

"This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not without considerable opposition."

In the Virginia Convention, Mr. Madison said:—

"Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have entered into the Union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The Union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued for ever; but, by this clause, an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circumstances. A tax may be laid in the meantime."

In the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Spaight, one of the framers of the Constitution, said—

"That there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States, to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that in the meantime some tax or duty might be laid on."

In the South Carolina Convention, Hon. Rawlins Lowndes said:—

"In the first place, what cause was there for jealousy of our importing negroes? Why confine us to twenty years, or rather why limit us at all? For his part, he thought this trade could be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a better was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't like our slaves, because they have none themselves."

Gen. Charles C. Pinckney said:—

"By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes for twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation shall be then stopped: it may be continued; we have a security that the general government can never emancipate them."

Restoration of Fugitive Slaves. (Const. Art. 4, sec. 2.)

In the Philadelphia Convention, Aug. 28, 1787, Art. 14 was taken up for consideration. This article read, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Gen. Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.

Art. 15 was as follows:—

"Any person charged with treason, felony, or high misdemeanor, in any State, who shall flee from justice, and shall be found in any other State, shall, on demand of the executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of the offence."

This article being then taken up, the words "high misdemeanor" were struck out, and the words "other crime" inserted, in order to comprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether "high misdemeanor" had not a technical meaning too limited.

Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals."

Mr. Wilson: This would oblige the executive of the State to do it at the public expense.

Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse.

Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made, apart from this article.

Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, nem. con.—Mad. Papers, pp. 1447-8.

The next day, Aug. 29, Mr. Butler, to accomplish his purpose, moved to insert, after Art. 15,—

"If any person, bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor."

Which was agreed to, nem. con.

After the phraseology had been somewhat altered, on Saturday, Sept. 15, 1787, in this clause (then Const. Art. 4, sec. 2) the term "legally" was struck out, and the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some one who thought the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.

In the Virginia Convention, Mr. Madison said:—

"Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated, by their laws; for the laws of the States are uncharitable (!) to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States."

In the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause:—

"In some of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of our slaves," said he, "go there and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States; and, to prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the word slave be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word slave to be mentioned."

Gen. Pinckney, says Mr. Madison, was not satisfied with Art. 14, and "seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves." He thus, in the South Carolina Convention, expresses his satisfaction at this article of the Constitution:—

"We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad."(!)

Suppression of Slave Insurrections. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 8; Art. 4, sec. 4.)

Luther Martin, in the speech before alluded to, used the following language:—

"It was further urged, that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections: from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the number of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and therefore will by so much the more want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union."

In the Virginia Convention, Mr. George Nicholas said:—

"Another worthy member says there is no power in the States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it now? If they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it must be in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy member. The first clause gives the general government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States? No; but it gives an additional security; for, besides the power in the State governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the general government to aid them with the strength of the Union, when called for. No part of this Constitution can show that this power is taken away."

Mr. Madison, respecting these clauses, says:—

"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be, the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth their own militia? No; but it gives them a supplementary security to suppress insurrections and domestic violence."

CHAPTER XIV.

THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO THE PRACTICE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Uniform practice under a law is one of the highest proofs of the meaning of that law.

Apportionment of Representatives. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 2.)

The Constitution (Art. 1, sec. 2, par. 3) provides that the enumeration of the people of the United States (upon which the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes was to be made) "shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."

On the 1st of March, 1790, George Washington, who had been president of the Convention which framed the Constitution, approved "an Act providing for the enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States." The first Congress ever assembled, and the first President ever elected, under the Constitution, under the sanction of their respective oaths "to support the Constitution," by this Act expressed their deliberate judgment as to the true meaning of the people of the United States in adopting this section of the Constitution. What, in their judgment, was such meaning?

These extracts from the Act will suffice (Act 1790, chap. 29):—

Sec. 1: "Be it enacted, &c. That the marshals of the several districts of the United States shall be, and they are hereby, authorized and required to cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken, omitting, in such enumeration, Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colors of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age: for effecting which purpose, the marshals shall have power to appoint as many assistants within their respective districts as to them shall appear necessary, assigning to each assistant a certain division of his district," &c.

These assistants were obliged to transmit to the marshals, returns in manner following:—

"The number of persons within my division, consisting of ——, appears in a schedule hereunto annexed, subscribed by me, this —— day of —— 179 .

A. B. Assistant to the Marshal of ——"

Free white

males of sixteen Free white Free white

Names of years and males under females,

heads upwards, sixteen years. including All other free Slaves.

of families. including heads of persons.

heads of families.

families.

That is, the enumeration directed to be made, and upon the basis of which the constitutional apportionment of representatives and direct taxes was to be made, distinguished only between free persons and slaves. Congress and the President, under the sanction of their oaths, united in the expression of their deliberate judgment, that the people of the United States, by the expression (Art. 1, sec. 2) "three-fifths of all other persons," intended "three-fifths of the slaves," because, in passing this Act, they declare that all other persons not free within the meaning of this section are slaves.

The second Congress, at its first session, passed "An Act for apportioning representatives among the several States, according to the first enumeration" (Stat. 1792, c. 23). The language of the statute is as follows:—

Sec. 1: "Be it enacted, &c. That from and after the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, the House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected agreeably to a ratio of one member for every thirty-three thousand persons in each State, computed according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution, that is to say, within the State of New Hampshire, four," &c. &c.

That is, the second Congress, upon an enumeration distinguishing only freemen from slaves, undertake to apportion representatives among the States according to the rule laid down in the Constitution, viz. by adding to the whole number of free persons "three-fifths of the slaves."

This interpretation, by the first and second Congress, has never been varied from. In every census which has since been taken, the only distinction sanctioned has been between freemen and slaves; and, on every occasion of apportioning representatives, according the representative or federal number, such number has been invariably determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, three-fifths of the slaves. If this, the pro-slavery, interpretation of this section of the Constitution is not right, then, since March 3, 1793, there has not been a single House of Representatives constitutionally elected, or a single statute or resolve constitutionally passed! Who is ready to make this admission?

Permission of the African Slave-trade. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 9.)

On the 13th of May 1789, in Congress,—

"Mr. Parker (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a duty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He was sorry that the Constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument that it allowed of such actions; it was contrary to the revolution principles, and ought not to be permitted; but, as he could not do all the good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power.

· · · · · ·

"Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion; but he did not think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could not reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings, as an article of duty, among goods, wares, and merchandise. He hoped it would be withdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independent subject.

· · · · · ·

"Mr. Schureman (of N. J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion, because the present was not the time or place for introducing the business; he thought it had better be brought forward in the House, as a distinct proposition.

· · · · · ·

"Mr. Madison (of Va.): I cannot concur with gentlemen who think the present an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of the proposed motion. If it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do the same thing, at a greater expense of time....

"I conceive the Constitution, in this particular, was formed in order that the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of America with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was granted, I presume, upon two considerations: the first was, that, until the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and humanity of such a trade; the other was, that they might be taxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for, if the possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value, and ought to be paid for."

After a very considerable discussion, in which this section of the Constitution was referred to by various members, and the constitutionality of Mr. Parker's motion admitted, with the advice of Mr. Madison his colleague, Mr. Parker consented to withdraw his motion.

In 1794, "An Act to prohibit the carrying on the slave-trade from the United States to any foreign place or country" was passed (Stat. 1794, c. 11). In 1800, an Act in addition to the last was passed (Stat. 1800, c. 51). That both these laws were framed with reference to this section of the Constitution is apparent, because the latter Act expressly refers to it. Sec. 6 reads thus, "That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to authorize the bringing into either of the United States any person or persons, the importation of whom is, by the existing laws of such State, prohibited." In 1803 (Stat. 1803, c. 63) was passed "An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is prohibited."

Sec. 1: "Be it enacted, &c. That, from and after the first day of April next, no master or captain of any ship or vessel, or any other person, shall import or bring, or cause to be imported or brought, any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, not being a native, a citizen, or registered seaman of the United States, or seamen, natives of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, into any port or place of the United States, which port or place shall be situated in any State which by law has prohibited, or shall prohibit, the admission or importation of such negro, mulatto, or other person of color," &c. &c.