The Power of the Master or “Owner” is virtually unlimited—The submission required of the Slave is unbounded—The Slave being “Property” can have no protection against the Master, and has no remedy or redress for injuries inflicted by him.

     THIS proposition is substantially involved in the legal definition of slavery, as presented in our first chapter. The proof and illustration of it has been gradually evolving as we have proceeded thus far. It will continue to accumulate as we shall in future chapters examine the topics of slave labor, slave sustenance and clothing, slave punishments, and the intellectual and religious condition of slaves. At every step, the slave will have been found wholly subject to his master, dependent upon him, and defenseless. In this chapter we shall aim only to present, in a condensed form, the precise doctrine of the Slave Code on this subject.

     If the slave be the absolute property of his master—“entirely subject to his will”—“incapable of being injured”—“chattels personal, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever”—“not ranked

among sentient beings, but among things”—the subjects of absolute purchase and sale—of seizure for debt—of inheritance and distribution—incapable of possessing property—“not entitled to the conditions of matrimony”—“not capable of constituting families”—(and all this has been shown)—then the master is indeed absolute, and the slave defenseless, of course. And any attempt by the Legislature or by the Courts to afford him protection, would be, in effect, an attempt to subvert “the legal relation of master and slave,” and overturn the tenure of slaveownership entirely.

     The question before us is, whether any such attempts have been made, and if so, how much, in a way of limitation and protection, has been accomplished.

     We repeat, here, a quotation before made from Judge Stroud: “it is plain that the dominion of the master is as unlimited as that which is tolerated by the laws of any civilized country in relation to brute animals—to quadrupeds, to use the words of the civil law.” (Stroud's Sketch, p. 24.)

     We quote further and still more specific statements of the law, from the same writer:

     “The master may determine the kind, and degree, and time of labor to which the slave shall be subjected.

     “The master may supply the slave with such food and clothing only, both as to quantity and quality, as he may think proper or find convenient.

     “The master may, at his discretion, inflict any punishment upon the person of his slave.

     “All the power of the master over his slave may be exercised not by himself only in person, but by any one whom he may depute as his agent.

     “A slave cannot be a party before a judicial tribunal, in any species of action, against his master, no matter how atrocious may have been the injury received from him.

     “Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such change necessary for their personal safety.”

     “Slaves being objects of property, if injured by others, their owners may bring suit, and recover damage for the injury.” (Stroud's Sketch, p. 25.)

     To this we will add:

     The master may wholly forbid and prevent the education, the moral and religious instruction of his slaves—their attendance on religious meetings and religious worship, either among themselves or at meetings conducted by white persons.

     There is not a slave in the United States that can claim these benefits as legal rights, or that can enjoy these privileges, in any degree, except with the leave of their “owners” or their agents. There is not a slave-owner in the United States, however ignorant, vulgar, degraded, immoral, and irreligious, that does not hold this authority over each and all of his slaves, however pious or intelligent they may be. And this authority, involved in slave-ownership, is part and parcel of “the legal relation of master and slave.”

     There is not a slave State, or slave Territory or District under the Federal jurisdiction, that does not, by its Slave Code, extend its sanction and its guaranty to this power of the slave-owner.

     We speak here only of the power of the individual who holds slaves. The laws forbidding education and the free exercise of religion will be considered in another connection.

     “A statu liber” (a slave minor, entitled to freedom at the age of twenty-one) has (in the mean time) “no action at law for ill treatment.” Dorothee vs. Coquillon et al., Jan. Term, 1829. (19 Martin's Louisiana Rep., 350. Wheeler's Law of Slavery, pp. 108-9.)

     No resistance must be made by a slave to his master.

     “While the institution of slavery exists, every thing like resistance to the master's lawful authority should be decisively checked. Strict subordination must be exacted from the slave, or bloodshed and murders will unavoidably ensue. The laws of the slaveholding States demand, however, a much larger concession of power to the master than is here granted: they demand that THE LIFE of the slave shall be in the MASTER'S KEEPING—that the slave, having the physical ability to avoid the infliction of a barbarous and vindictive punishment by his master, shall not be permitted to do so.” (Stroud's Sketch, p. 97.)

     We reserve a quotation from Prince's Digest and from several statutes, until, in treating of the civil

relations of the slave, we shall use them to prove more than our present argument requires, viz.: that the same absolute submission of the slave is required by the laws, not merely towards the “owner” and his agent, but towards “all white persons!”

     Judge Ruffin, of North Carolina, in the case of State vs. Mann, decided as follows: “The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect. It would not do to allow the rights of the master to be brought into discussion in the courts of justice. The slave, to REMAIN a slave, must be sensible that there is NO APPEAL from his master.” (2 Devereaux's N. Carolina Rep., 263.)

     This justifies our statement that “the legal relation of master and slave” is responsible for all this despotic power.

     In Wheeler's Law of Slavery, pp. 244-8, there is a full report of the opinion of Judge Ruffin, from which we have taken the preceding extract. We shall revert to it again, and make further extracts, when, in another chapter, we come to treat of “Punishments of Slaves by the owners and hirers.” An examination of that topic will more fully illustrate the general proposition at the head of this chapter, for the correctness of which we here cite a few personal testimonies.

     “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting DESPOTISM on the one part, and degrading SUBMISSION on the other.”

     “Thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny,” &c. (Jefferson.)

     “I knew a gentleman of great benevolence and generosity of character,” “speak of breaking down the spirit of a slave, under the lash, as perfectly right.” (Angelina Grimke Weld, “Slavery as it is,” p. 54.)

     “There was no law for the negro, but that of the overseer's whip.” (L. Sapington, Ib., p. 49.)

     The Savannah River Baptist Association approvingly recognized the unlimited authority of the master, when they maintained his authority to annul slave marriages, and to compel new sexual connections between Baptist husbands and wives whom he had forcibly severed! The people are here found to be no better than their laws, and the Church no better than the people. Hence they consider the “legal relation an innocent one.” It stands precisely on their own moral level.

     This chapter may serve as a key to a number of the chapters that follow, as it contains the principle upon which their specifications are based, the absolute authority of the master. Those chapters, in their turn, will furnish illustrations and evidences of the truth of this.