The Slave, being a Chattel, has no power of Self-redemption, nor of an exchange of Owners.

     AN ox cannot buy himself of his owner, nor transfer himself to the ownership of another. Here again, “to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever,” the slave is on a level with other working chattels! This must be his predicament in the very nature of the case, if the principle of chatelhood is to be consistently maintained.

     “Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for their personal safety.” (Stroud’s Sketch, pp. 57-8.)

     It is of American slavery in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, and among a people boasting their pure religion and their free institutions, that this is affirmed. Among ancient heathen nations were found laws providing that slaves abused by their masters might apply to the magistrates, who would order them to be sold to a new master.

     In Mississippi, as before noticed, the Constitution has empowered the Legislature to enact such a law, but the Legislature have not seen fit to exercise the power.

     In Louisiana, the new Civil Code contains a regulation looking apparently in that direction, but difficult, if not impossible, to be made effective. It is as follows:

     “No master shall be compelled to sell his slave, but in one of two cases, to wit: the first, when, being only co-proprietor of the slave, his co-proprietor demands the sale, in order to make a partition of the property; second, when the master shall be CONVICTED of cruel treatment of his slave, and the Judge shall deem it proper to pronounce, besides the penalty established for such cases, that the slave shall be sold at public auction, in order to place him out of the reach of the power which his master has abused.” (Art. 192.)

     It is to be noticed here, that the Judge is only empowered, not directed, to make such a decree. He may apply merely the other penalties alluded to, and which have already been examined, (Chap. XIII.) The master must be CONVICTED of cruelty by “WHITE” testimony, by a Court and jury of slaveholders, and amid legal rules and usages that expressly authorize chastisement with rigor, provided it be not “unusual,” nor “so as to maim or mutilate,” or endanger life. (Civil Code of Louisiana, before cited, Chap. XIII.)

     It is not known that this law of Louisiana has

ever been enforced, and no other slave State in the Union, so far as we know, has any similar provision, though they are careful to provide, in this particular, for the security of indented apprentices. Without a change of masters, it is evident that no other laws against cruelty would be of any value. To punish an owner or overseer for abusing a slave, (even if it ever were done,) and then send the slave back again to be under the power of the same tyrant, (enraged, as he would be, at his punishment,) would only be to secure fresh injuries in secret.

     As to the slave’s power of self-redemption, there is no legal provision for it in any of our American slave States. Under the Spanish laws—as, for example, in Cuba—a slave may apply to the proper magistrates and be appraised. If, within a specified period, by the assistance of friends, or by a customary if not prescribed arrangement with the master, and by his own extra exertions, the amount of the appraisal can be raised, he becomes free. In this way many emancipations take place, as was also the fact among the ancient heathen. Our Christian and Protestant slavery knows no relaxation of the kind! The late U. S. Senator, James D’Wolfe, of Rhode Island, who owned a slave plantation in Cuba, and who was, in early life, a captain or supercargo of a slaver to Africa, was wont to dwell with satisfaction on this feature of Cuban slavery, and to congratulate himself that he was not a slaveholder under our American Code, which allowed no opportunity to an industrious and enterprising slave to become free.