The extent, the atrocity, the frequency, and the impunity of barbarous outrages upon Slaves, show that the Laws afford them little or no protection.

     WE have occupied so much space with the laws on the subject of the protection of slaves, that we can spare little room for the abundant facts which correspond with and illustrate them.

     In respect to the murdering of slaves by white men, with general impunity, two propositions, if sustained, will settle the question. First, the murdering of slaves by white men has all along been, and still is, notoriously frequent. Not a few of these murdered their own slaves. Second, upon the most diligent inquiry and public challenge, for fifteen or twenty years past, not one single case has yet been ascertained* in which, either during that time or previously,

a master killing his slave, or indeed any other white man, has suffered the penalty of death for the murder of a slave. These two general facts, if they are facts, tell the whole story, so far as the protection of the lives of slaves is concerned.

     At a time of much general excitement on this very question, during the period just now mentioned, (1839,) a case occurred which, it was generally supposed on all hands at the North, would prove an exception. A Court in South Carolina convicted a white man of having murdered a slave, and sentenced him to death. Governor Butler declined to comply with an application for his pardon, assigning, as a reason, that the eyes of the civilized world were upon them, and that the reputation of the State was at stake. This appeal, it was supposed, would be sufficient, but it only added fuel to the general excitement occasioned by the unusual if not unprecedented sentence of the Court. The whole State was in a ferment. The Court and the Governor were denounced. The press fulminated its anathemas; and before the day of execution arrived, the community were quieted with the announcement that the prisoner had escaped! Whether the locks were opened with keys, or the bolts broken; whether the walls were pierced or the windows opened; or whether the higher or lower authorities connived, the great public never heard! The Southern papers

were watched for announcements of executive offers of reward for the prisoner’s apprehension, but none ever appeared. The fugitive was not a fugitive slave. He might come to the North, if he pleased, without danger that the arm of the Federal Government would molest him! He was not guilty of rebelling against a slave owner’s authority. He had only murdered a slave!

     The frequency of such murders in South Carolina, so long ago as 1791, was publicly announced in her Courts of law, no one contradicting it. In the case of the State vs. McGee, Messrs. Pinkney and Ford, Counsel for the State, said: “The frequency of the offense (wilful murder of a slave) was owing to the nature of the punishment,” &c., (i. e., a pecuniary fine.). (1 Bay’s Reports, 164. Vide Stroud, p. 39.)

     “In 1791, the Grand Jury for the District of Cheraw, (South Carolina,) made a presentment on the same subject, expressing their confidence that the Legislature would provide some other more effectual measures to prevent the FREQUENCY of crimes of this nature.” (Matthew Carey’s American Museum for February, 1791, Appendix, p.10. Weld’s Slavery, &c., p. 155.) Yet thirty more years elapsed before the penalty was changed, and still the law seems as powerless as ever. It is paralyzed by “the innocent legal relation” between an owner and his human chattel!

     If any one doubts the frequency and the impunity of such murders, let him con over the attested facts in the book to which we have so frequently referred,

Weld’s “Slavery as it is.” Take a few specimens. On page 47 are four cases, related by Rev. William T. Allan, son of a slaveholding D.D. in Alabama.

     (1.) “A man near Courtland, Ala., of the name of Thompson, recently shot a negro woman through the head, and put the pistol so close that her hair was singed. He did it in consequence of some difficulty in his dealings with her as a concubine. He buried her in a log heap; she was discovered by the buzzards gathering around it.” (2.) “Two men, of the name of Wilson, found a fine-looking negro man at Dandridge’s Quarter, without a pass, and flogged him so that he died in a short time. They were not punished.” (3.) “Col. Blocker’s overseer attempted to flog a negro. He refused to be flogged, whereupon the overseer seized an axe, and cleft his skull. The Colonel justified it.” (4.) “One Jones whipped a woman to death for grabbing a potatoe hill.”

     Compare these four cases with the slave laws already cited. The second and fourth, being deaths by whipping, would pass, probably, as cases of “death under moderate correction.” The third, Col. Blocker’s overseer, would be justified by a Court of law as readily as by the Colonel. The slave was “resisting” or “offering to resist” the overseer, and was therefore an outlaw. The first case is not quite as clear. If the concubine “resisted” or “offered to resist” Mr. Thompson’s advances, whether revengeful or lustful, she came, plainly, into the same legal predicament, and was lawfully killed! For “the legal relation” must be maintained! But were not

these flagrant cases of murder? Take some other facts, furnished also by Mr. Allan on the page previous, (46.)

     (1.) Mr. Turner stated that one of his uncles, in Caroline county, Virginia, had killed a woman—broke her skull with an axe-helve: she had insulted her mistress! No notice was taken of the affair. (2.) Mr. T. said that slaves were frequently murdered. (3.) In Mississippi a slave chanced to come forward hastily from eating, to hear the ‘orders,’ with a knife in his hand. The overseer, alarmed, raised his gun and shot him dead. He afterwards saw and confessed his mistake. But “no notice was taken” of the killing.

     On page 50 will be found, by the testimony of Mrs. Nancy Lowry, a native of Kentucky, three cases of “premature deaths”—“generally believed by the neighbors that extreme whipping was the cause.” Mr. Long, the inflictor and owner, was “a strict professor of the Christian religion,” and “thought to be a very humane master.” The victims, “John, Ned, and James, had wives.” They were flogged frequently and “severely.” “The cause of their flogging was, commonly, staying, a little over the time, with their wives!”

     On page 97, in the testimony of Rev. Francis Hawley, there is a characteristic case. A son of a slaveholder “took,” as was believed, “the wife of one of the negro men. The poor slave felt himself greatly injured, and expostulated with him. The wretch took his gun and deliberately shot him.

Providentially he only wounded him badly.” This shows, however, the cause of many murders of slaves. In South Carolina, a physician whipped his slave to death, “was tried and acquitted, and the next year ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATURE!” (Ib., p. 173.)

     “I know a local Methodist minister, a man of talents, and popular as a preacher, who took his negro girl into the barn to whip her, and she was brought out a corpse.” (p.173.) This is the testimony of Mr. Geo. A. Avery, of Rochester, N. Y., who states further that the friends of the minister seemed to think it of “little importance to his ministerial standing.” Of course he was not indicted! This was in Virginia.

     A minister in South Carolina, a native of the North, had a stated Sabbath appointment to preach, about eight miles from his residence. He was in the habit of riding thither in his gig or sulkey, after a very swift trotting horse, which he always drove briskly. Behind him ran his negro slave on foot, who was required to be at the place of appointment as soon as his master, to take care of his horse. Sometimes he fell behind, and kept his master waiting for him a few minutes, for which he always received a reprimand, and was sometimes punished. On one occasion of this kind, after sermon, the master told the slave that he would take care to have him keep up with him, going home. So he tied him by the wrists, with a halter, to his gig behind, and drove rapidly home. The result was that, about two or three miles from home, the poor fellow’s feet and

legs failed him, and he was dragged on the ground all the rest of the way, by the wrists! Whether the master knew it or not till he reached home, is not certain; but on alighting and looking round, he exclaimed, “Well! I thought you would keep up with me this time!” so saying, he coolly walked into the house. The servants came out and took up the poor sufferer for dead. After a time he revived a little, lingered for a day or two, and died! The facts were known all over the neighborhood, but nothing was done about it! The minister continued preaching as before; and another slave of his, unable to labor or walk, was seen laid under a shed, near the house, where he would have starved, but for the food thrown over the fence to him by some mechanics working nearby, and which he devoured ravenously. He was sent off to the plantation, and soon after died. When that minister comes up to our General Assemblies, Annual Conferences, or May Anniversaries, he can doubtless tell us all about the “innocent legal relation” of slave owner, and how kindly the slaves are treated by their masters! We should not publish this narrative, which has never before appeared in print, had it not been told to us by an eye-witness, with whom we are well acquainted, and in whose statements we can implicitly confide: Mr. John W. Hill, Green Point, near New York city. He saw the gig when it came up, with the slave dragging behind, and saw the minister alight and go in.

     “I knew a young man” (in Virginia—says Mr.

Geo. A. Avery, of Rochester, N. Y.) “who had been out hunting, and returning, with some of his friends, seeing a negro man in the road, at a little distance, deliberately drew up his rifle, and shot him dead. This was done without the slightest provocation, or a word passing. This young man passed through the form of a trial; and although it was not even pretended by his counsel that he was not guilty of the act, deliberately and wantonly perpetrated, he was acquitted. It was urged by his counsel that he was a young man, (about twenty years of age,) had no malicious intention, his mother was a widow, &c., &c.” (Weld’s “Slavery as it is,” p. 172.)

     The young man or his mother probably paid the “owner” the value of the chattel, (if he was a slave,) and he would perhaps be cautious in indulging his propensities as a sportsman, in shooting such expensive game, in future. In a civil suit of the “owner” for “damages,” a jury of slaveholders would be less lenient. It would, however, be too much to expect of them that, for the same act, they would first oblige the unfortunate young gentleman to pay the market value of the commodity, and then hang him for the murder of the man—especially where it is gravely maintained that satisfaction to the master is a sufficient protection to the slave! The FACTS, as thus stated, (the most charitable version that could be made,) present the most favorable illustration of the LAW. It would appear still worse if there was not even the pecuniary forfeiture. The facts and the law combined are the legitimate and natural results of

“the legal relation of owner and slave.” If the principle and the relation are right, it might be difficult to show the practice to be wrong. Communities educated in the former will be sure to become involved in the latter.

     Will it be said that these statements are only the fictions or exaggerations of Northerners? Or that they describe only a few isolated cases? Or that they apply only to the lower circles of society at the South? Listen, then, to a Virginian slaveholder, moving in the very highest circles of Southern society—the Hon. John Randolph, of Roanoke:

     “Avarice alone can drive, as it does drive, this infernal traffic, and the wretched victims of it, like so many post-horses, WHIPPED TO DEATH in a mail-coach. Ambition has its cover-sluts in the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war; but where are the trophies of avarice? The handcuff, the manacle, the blood-stained cowhide! WHAT MAN IS WORSE RECEIVED IN SOCIETY FOR BEING A HARD MASTER? WHO DENIES THE HAND OF A SISTER OR DAUGHTER TO SUCH MONSTERS?” (Speech in Congress.)

     Study this picture. Wholesale murder—barbarism—cruelty. The general prevalence of these in the highest circles, and no one regarding the perpetrators the worse for it, or shrinking back from the closest family affinity with “the monsters!”

     What Northern pencil has drawn a more frightful picture of the slave States than this? Old Virginia sat for the likeness, drawn by one of her most gifted sons! Was John Randolph a slanderer, a fanatic?

Hear the testimony, then, of another honored son of Virginia, the sage of Monticello.

     “When the measure of their tears is full; when their GROANS HAVE INVOLVED HEAVEN ITSELF IN DARKNESS, doubtless a God of JUSTICE will listen to their DISTRESS.” (Jefferson’s Correspondence.)

     Recall to mind the wholesale murders of Gen. Wade Hampton, recorded in another connection, (Chap. XI.) Remember the still more extensive and systematic murders of the Louisiana sugar planters, (Chap. V.,) complacently regarded and connived at by pious slave-breeders in Virginia, (Chap. X.,) cold-blooded, calculating, diabolic, like that of pirates; then say whether it be credible that such laws as have been reviewed in this chapter could protect the lives of slaves! Say, rather, what possible enactments could avail for them, while the “legal relation” of slave ownership continues?

     If any further light is wanted on that feature of the Slave Code that insultingly proffers to the slave its protection from “unusual” punishments, the inquirer might see what punishments are “usual” by looking over the advertisements and paragraphs of a dozen leading Southern journals, from as many different States, for twelve months. Cut out, arranged, and pasted in a scrap-book, with an index, they would furnish him with a copious and authentic commentary on the slave laws. Every successive year, if he chose to repeat the process, would furnish a new volume. If he would save the labor, and avail himself of a faithfully collated scrap-book, made

up to his hand, we refer him to Weld’s “Slavery as it is,” large portions of which he will find to have been gathered by this process.

     He will there find numerous advertisements of runaway slaves, and of jailers’ notices of apprehensions and commitments of them, in which the descriptions specify scars from whipping, from iron collars, from gun-shots, from brandings, &c., &c. Many are described as having on handcuffs, chains, and iron collars. One is “much marked with the whip”—another “severely bruised“another, “a great many scars from the lash”—another, “several large scars on his back from severe whipping in early life!”—another “had a collar on, with one prong turned down“another “had on a drawing-chain, fastened around his ankle with a house-lock”—another was “much marked with irons”—another (negress Fanny) “had an iron band about her neck,” &c., &c. All this, as the reader now knows, is authorized by law—not prohibited as “unusual.”

     Then comes another class, which, if not expressly authorized, are found by their frequency to be outside of the prohibited pale of “unusual.” “Mary has a scar on her back and right arm, caused by a rifle ball”—another “branded on the left jaw”—“Arthur has a scar across his breast and each arm, made by a knife; loves to talk much of the goodness of God”—“George has a sword-cut, lately received in his left arm”—“Mary has a small scar over her eye, a good many teeth missing, the letter A branded on her cheek and forehead.” Many others “scarred with the bite of a dog.”

     “RAN AWAY, a negro woman and two children. A few days before she went off, I burnt her with a hot iron on the left side of her face. I tried to make the letter M.”

     Another class are described by mutilations which, though nominally prohibited by law, appear to be far from being “unusual;” and neither fear of law nor of public odium prevent the public advertisement of them.

     One “has only one eye;” another, “Rachel, has lost all her toes except the large one.” “Joshua, his thumb is off, on the left hand.” Another, “his right leg broken.” “John, left ear cropt;” another “has lost one of his ears.”

     Many pages might be occupied with similar advertisements, which appear in the most respectable Southern journals, with the names of the advertisers, many of them prominent citizens, and sometimes respectable ladies!

     One case, on page 15 of Mr. Weld’s book, is doubtless a specimen of tens, if not hundreds of thousands; assuredly it does not come under the condemnation of being “unusual.” The “owner” of a female slave, who was a Methodist, proposed a criminal intercourse with her: she refused. He sent her to the “overseer” to be flogged. Again he made advances—again she refused, and again she was flogged! Afterwards she yielded to his adulterous wishes! And now, the attentive reader of the preceding pages will have learned that all this was strictly within the protection of the law! Its

limitations this monster had not overstepped. At least, there is no adequate law for his punishment—nay, so far as appears, there have been no legislative attempts or even pretensions to provide protection against such outrages!

     But details of this kind, on this subject, are always set down as exceptions. We turn, then, again to a specimen of general testimonies.

     Rev. GEORGE WHITEFIELD, in his letter to the slaveholders of Maryland, Virginia, the two Carolinas and Georgia, after admitting “particular exceptions,” charges them, in general, with treating their slaves “worse than if they were brutes.” He adds, “The BLOOD of them, SPILT for these many years in your respective provinces, will ascend up to heaven against you.”

     WILLIAM PINCKNEY, of Maryland, (1789,) calls Maryland “the foster-mother of petty despots, the patron of wanton oppression!”

     Dr. JONATHAN EDWARDS, of Connecticut, (1791,) says, “The smack of the whip is all day long in the ears of those who are on the plantation, or in the vicinity; and it is used with such dexterity and severity as not only to lacerate the skin, but to tear out small portions of the flesh at almost every stroke. This is THE GENERAL TREATMENT of the Slaves. But many individuals suffer still more severely. Many are knocked down; some have their eyes beaten out; some have an arm or a leg broken, OR CHOPPED OFF; and many, for a very small or for no crime at all, have been BEATEN TO DEATH,” &c.

     JOHN WOOLMAN, of New-Jersey, (1758:) “Their punishment is often severe, and sometimes desperate.” (Journal, &c., p. 74.)

     GEORGE BUCHANAN, M. D., of Baltimore, (4th of July Oration, 1791:) “Their situation” [the slaves’] “is insupportable: misery inhabits their cabins, and pursues them in the field. Inhumanly beaten, they OFTEN fall sacrifices to the turbulent tempers of their masters. Who is there, unless inured to savage cruelties, that can bear to hear of the INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS DAILY INFLICTED upon the unfortunate blacks, and not feel for them? Can a man, who calls himself a Christian, coolly and deliberately tie up, thumb-screw, torture with pincers, and beat unmercifully, a poor slave, for, perhaps, a trifling neglect of duty?”

     AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY: “We have never heard of slavery in any country, ancient or modern, Pagan, Mohammedan, or Christian, so terrible in its character, as the slavery which exists in these United States.” (Seventh Report, 1824.)

     The PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD OF KENTUCKY (1834) said, “Brutal stripes, and all the varied kinds of personal indignities, are not the only species of cruelty which slavery LICENSES.”

     “They [the slaves] suffer all that can be inflicted by wanton caprice, by grasping avarice, by brutal lust, by malignant spite, and by insane anger. Their happiness is the sport of every whim, the prey of every passion that may occasionally or habitually infest the master’s bosom.”

     Rev. JAMES A. THOME, now of Ohio City, a native of Kentucky, and son of a slaveholder, says, “Slavery is the parent of more suffering than has flowed from any one source since the date of its existence. Such sufferings too! Sufferings inconceivable and innumerable; unmingled wretchedness from the ties of nature rudely broken and destroyed; the acutest bodily tortures, groans, tears and blood; lying for ever in weariness and painfulness, in watchings, in hunger and in thirst, in cold and in nakedness.”

     We forbear citing further witnesses. It is manifest that human chattels must be worse treated than brutes, in order to be kept in chattelhood. Other working animals are not punished as examples to their fellows. They are not the objects of suspicion, jealousy, lust, or revenge. They are not hated. They are not threatened. They are not conversed and quarrelled with. They cannot be regarded guilty, or proper subjects of censure or punishment. They have no aspirations above their condition. They have no keen sense of being injured by being imbruted. They can utter no provoking language, nor retort, nor retaliate. All these items are bulwarks of defense to the brute, but inlets and avenues of attack upon the slave. The individuals and the classes of men most wronged, are proverbially most hated by the wrong-doer. This is the dreadful doom of the poor negro, and he is completely under the power of his tyrant. As the exercise of despotic power over the defenseless makes men hardhearted

and cruel, it is evident that the more absolute any despotism becomes, the more cruel will the persons become who administer it. And the most absolute form of despotism known among men, is that of human chattelhood in the United States of America, as its code proves.

     The unnatural and monstrous “legal relation” of slave ownership, unhumanizing human beings, insures cruelties that human language cannot describe, nor human imagination conceive! No pencil can portray them; no statistics exhibit the sum total. The slave code is sufficiently horrible, but every syllable of it can be written, printed, and measured by pages. The practical illustration has no limits; its horrors swell into infinity!

     “No people were ever yet found who were better than their” [living and recognized] “laws, though many have been known to be worse.”