* *N 
 
 *V 
 
SKETCH OF THE LAWS 
 
 RELATING TO 
 
 SLAVERY 
 
 IN THE SEVERAL STATES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 BY GEORGE M. STROUD. 
 
 it 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY KIMBER AND SHARPLESS, 
 
 No. 93 Market Street. 
 
 /, Ashmead? Printu 
 1827 
 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to ioit : 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the tenth day of October, in 
 L. S. the fifty-second year of the Independence of the United States of 
 w^ 3 America, A. D. 1827. 
 
 GEORGE M. STBOUB, ESQ.. 
 
 of the said district hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right 
 whereof he claims as author, in the words following, to wit : 
 A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery in the several States of the United 
 States of America. By George M. Stroud. 
 
 In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States entitled, 
 "An act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of maps, 
 charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the 
 times therein mentioned." And also to the act, entitled, " An act supple 
 mentary to an act, entitled, " An act for the encouragement of learning, by 
 securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprie 
 tors of such copies during the times therein mentioned," and extending the 
 benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical 
 and other prints." 
 
 ^D. CALDWELL, 
 Clerk of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE state of slavery in this country, so far as it can be ascer 
 tained from the laws of the several independent sovereignties 
 which belong to our confederacy, is the subject of the following 
 sheets. This comprises a particular examination of the laws of 
 the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, 
 Mississippi, Alabama and Missouri. With respect to the re 
 maining states, slavery, in some, having been abolished, and in 
 others, never tolerated, a cursory notice of a few of their laws, 
 chiefly important for the evidence which they furnish of the 
 right of these states to the appellation of non-slave-holding , is 
 all which the title or object of this work requires. 
 
 The District of Columbia, though, in this connexion, not pro 
 perly denominated, a state, yet, from its important character 
 in being exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Go 
 vernment, deserves an equal share of attention. It happens, 
 however, that this District in regard to slavery as well as many 
 other topics, is not regulated, integrally, by a code of laws en 
 acted for the purpose by Congress; that body, having by an act, 
 dated February 27th, 1801, declared, that, the part of the Dis 
 trict of Columbia which had been ceded to the United States by 
 the state of Virginia, should be governed by the laws which 
 were then in force in Virginia, and the other part, which had 
 been ceded by the state of Maryland, should in like manner be 
 governed by the laws then in force in Maryland. But few al 
 terations have been made in the laws affecting the condition of 
 slaves in either of the states just named, since the date of the 
 act of congress; the quotations, therefore, given from their re 
 spective codes, being applied in conformity with the distinction 
 
IV 
 
 established by the act of congress, may, with but little hazard 
 of error, be received as the laws of the District of Columbia. 
 
 Such provisions of the Constitution of the United States, as 
 might be fitly introduced into this sketch, have been added 
 in an Appendix. Several acts of congress, will be found in 
 serted there also. These, however, are not numerous, since 
 from the peculiar relation which subsists between the Federal 
 Government and the individual states, the-former, except within 
 the District of Columbia and the territories not yet incorpor 
 ated into the union, as states, is restrained from the exercise of 
 legislative functions on all subjects of a character exclusively 
 municipal. 
 
 The value of a work like the present, must depend, mainly, 
 upon the authenticity of its materials. On this point, but little, 
 if any, exception can be justly taken. The most approved code, 
 of each state, was sought for, and, in most instances, obtained. 
 The laws of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, 
 Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Missouri, have been cited, 
 from publications made under the express sanction of the seve 
 ral legislatures of these states. The laws of South Carolina have 
 been drawn principally from a source entitled to equal consi 
 deration. I mean the Digest by Judge Brevard. This, how 
 ever, having been issued from the press in 1814, it became ne 
 cessary to procure a work which would indicate the changes ef 
 fected by the legislature since that period. The second edition 
 of James 7 Digest, has been used for this purpose, and though 
 the first edition of this work is stated, in Griffith s Law Regis 
 ter, to have been imperfectly executed and not to deserve much 
 reliance, yet, a second one having been called for, it seems fair 
 to presume that in this, the errors of the first have been cor 
 rected and its defects supplied. 
 
 For the laws of North Carolina, as well as for the larger por 
 tion of those of Tennessee, recourse has been had to " Hay- 
 wood s Manual. " Professedly, this work treats of the laws of 
 North Carolina only, yet, as the territory which now composes 
 Tennessee, was until April 2d, 1790, included within the bounds 
 of the former state, and subject to its jurisdiction, it was judged 
 expedient, when the separation took place, to provide that 
 
the laws of North Carolina should continue to be observed by 
 the citizens of Tennessee, until severally altered or repealed by 
 competent legislative authority. By a copy, which I possess, of 
 the laws, of this latter state, applicable to slaves, it does not ap 
 pear that many such alterations or repeals have been made. I 
 have, therefore, in general, omitted to mention specifically, that 
 a particular law of North Carolina, is also in force in Tennessee, 
 but have given the date of such law, if passed before April 2d, 
 1790, intending to apprize the reader, that in every citation of 
 this kind, Tennessee should be classed with North Carolina, un 
 less the contrary be distinctly mentioned. Legislative enact 
 ments emanating from the territorial government which suc 
 ceeded the cession by North Carolina, and those also which have 
 been made by the state of Tennessee, are referred to, under 
 the name of Laws of Tennessee, stating the year in which 
 they were enacted, and the chapter in which theymay be found. 
 
 In a treatise of no greater extent, than that which is here of 
 fered, it may be thought unnecessary to speak, in this place, of 
 the plan which has been observed. I allude to the topic, chiefly, 
 to avail myself of the opportunity which it affords, of acknow 
 ledging my obligation, in this respect, to JAMES STEPHEN, ESQ. 
 of London, to whose comprehensive work, " The Slavery of 
 the British West India, Colonies Delineated," I am also large 
 ly indebted for much valuable information. The titles to the 
 chapters and sections into which this sketch has been divided, 
 will be found to correspond, in most instances, substantially, 
 and in some, verbally, with those employed by him. The rea 
 son of this adoption, will be evident, when it is recollected that 
 the prominent features of slavery in the British West Indies, 
 and in our slave-holding states, closely resemble each other, and 
 I could not hope to excel the model of so competent a master. I 
 might also suggest as an additional reason, that MR. BARCLAY 
 of Jamaica, in the work which he has published as a reply to 
 MR. STEPHEN, has pursued the same arrangement. Fas esl ab 
 hoste doceri. 
 
 Having been under the necessity of bringing together, the 
 laws of so large a number of independent states, it must be ob- 
 
VI 
 
 vious thai considerable difficulty existed in assigning to each 
 part its proper place, and giving to each its due effect, and at 
 the same time, preserving the appearance of symmetry in the 
 whole. As the best method of meeting this difficulty, when 
 the provisions of different codes on the same point, were in the 
 same language, or, as was most commonly the case, the same in 
 substance but not in language, I have in general, used a tran 
 script frome one code, and having noted, in immediate connex 
 ion, the work from which it was taken, have added, successive 
 ly, references to the other codes. The words "similar," and, 
 "nearly similar," are sometimes interposed; the purpose of 
 which, needs no explanation. The titles of the different Digests 
 being cited, seemed to me to render a perpetual repetition of 
 the names of the States, unnecessary. In many occasions, there 
 fore, these are omitted. 
 
 That the comments which I have offered on many of the laws, 
 might the more readily be understood, and their propriety judg 
 ed of, I have, in almost every quotation which has been made, 
 given the exact words of the law, omitting such only, as were 
 not essential to the perception of the legislative intent. 
 
 Of the actual condition of slaves, this sketch does not pro- 
 fress to treat. In representative republics, however, like those 
 of these United States, where the popular voice so greatly in 
 fluences all political concerns, where the members of the legisla 
 tive departments are dependant for their places upon annual 
 elections, the laws may be safely regarded as constituting a 
 faithful exposition of the sentiments of the people, and as fur 
 nishing, therefore, strong evidence of the practical enjoyments 
 and privations of those whom they are designed to govern. To 
 the condition of the passive members of the community, such 
 as slaves, this latter deduction is, emphatically, applicable. I speak 
 of the case of slaves generally. Their condition will, no doubt, 
 in a great degree, take its complexion from the peculiar disposi 
 tion of their respective masters; a consideration which operates 
 as muchagainst as in favour of the slave: for it cannot be denied, 
 that there arc many persons but little controlled by feelings of 
 humanity, and less restrained by the precepts of religion, man} 
 who "feeling power, forget right." 
 
Vll 
 
 The very existence of slavery is calculated to produce the 
 worst effects on the temper and morals of the masters. On this 
 point, and indeed, on the general treatment of slaves by their 
 masters, the most decisive testimony is borne, by MR. JEFFER 
 SON, in his Notes on Virginia. " The whole commerce be 
 tween master and slave," says he, " is a perpetual exercise of 
 the most boisterous passions the most unremitting despotism 
 on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our 
 children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative 
 animal. If a parent had no other motive, either in his own 
 philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance 
 of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one 
 that his child is present. But generally, it is not sufficient. 
 The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments 
 of wrath) puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, 
 gives a loose to his worst passions, AND THUS NURSED, EDU 
 CATED, AND DAILY EXERCISED IN TYRANNY, CANNOT BUT BE 
 STAMPED BY IT, WITH ODIOUS PECULIARITIES." 
 
 Philadelphia, October Sth, 1827. 
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The laws of several of the states, being contained in Digests? 
 in citing them, the names of the compilers have heen generally 
 given, and not the names of the states. Thus, the laws of 
 Georgia are cited from "Prince s Digest" 1 vol. ; the laws of 
 South Carolina, some from "JBrevard s Digest," 3 vols. and 
 some, from "James* Digest," 1 vol. ; the laws of North Caro 
 lina as well as a portion of those of Tennessee, (as explained in 
 the preface of this sketch,) from "Hay wood s Manual," 1 vol.; 
 the laws of Kentucky, from "Littell fy Swigert s Digest," 2 
 vols. ; the laws of Louisiana, to the year 1816, from "Martin s 
 Digest," 3 vols.; the laws of Pennsylvania from "Purdon s 
 Digest," 1 vol.; the laws of Alabama from "Toulmin s Di 
 gest," 1 vol. In Virginia and Mississippi, Revised Codes 
 have been prepared, and are cited, " Virg. Rev. Code and Miss. 
 Ren. Code," unless in some instances, where the name of the 
 state is prefixed to the extract made^ and Rev. Code only marks 
 the citation. The Civil Code of Louisiana and the Code of 
 Practice adopted in the same state, are cited by their respec 
 tive titles, and the article and its number given, but not the 
 page, this being the usual and most convenient mode of re 
 ference, as to these codes. 
 
 With respect to the laws of the other states, no explanation is 
 necessary, as the name of the state is used. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 121-2. In describing the tribunal by which slaves are 
 tried on criminal accusations, in Tennessee, I have stated, that 
 this state was in the year 1793, a part of North Carolina, &c. 
 This is erroneous, as will appear, by the preface to this sketch, 
 in which the proper date of the separation is noted, and, of con 
 sequence, the remarks there made which rest upon that hypo 
 thesis, are inappropriate. 
 
 The date of the act of Tennessee, as stated in the text, is also 
 erroneous. It should be November 8th, 1819, instead of Octo 
 ber 23d, 1813. A corresponding alteration must be made in 
 the reference. 
 
 Page 128, line IQthfrom the lop, instead of the statement, 
 that the ordinary tribunal for the trial of slaves in Tennessee, 
 consists of but three justices and freeholders, it should be, of 
 THREE justices and nine freeholders, or slave-holders, such an 
 alteration having, by an act of November 9th, 1815, been" made 
 in the law previously in force >%e Laws of Tennessee of 1819 9 
 rhnp. 1 38. 
 
LAWS 
 
 RELATING TO SLAVERY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE PERSONS WHO MAY BE HELD AS SLAVES, AND UPON WHAT 
 AUTHORITY THEY ARE SO HELD. 
 
 THE design of this sketch being merely to furnish a connected 
 view of the laws which relate to the institution of slavery as it 
 exists among us, it would be supererogatory to enter upon a 
 particular inquiry into its origin. I shall introduce the sub 
 ject to the reader, by ascertaining what persons are included 
 under the denomination of slaves, and upon what authority they 
 are regarded as such. These propositions present but little 
 difficulty; since positive enactments of the several legislatures 
 of the slave-holding states constitute the authority; and the lan 
 guage by which they are enunciated is sufficiently explicit to 
 prevent any misapprehension of their meaning. 
 
 The earliest law which I shall quote is taken from the laws 
 of Maryland. It is an act of the year 1663, chap. 30, in these 
 words: " All negroes or other slaves within the province, and 
 all negroes and other slaves to be hereafter imported into the 
 province, shall serve durante vita; and all children born of any 
 negro or other slave, shall be slaves as their fathers were for 
 the term of their lives." Section 2. "And forasmuch as di 
 vers free-born English women, forgetful of their free condition 
 and to the disgrace of our nation, do intermarry with negro 
 slaves, by which also, divers suits may arise, touching the issue of 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 such women,, and a great damage doth befall the master of such 
 negroes, for preservation whereof, for deterring such free-born 
 women from such shameful matches, be it enacted, fyc. That 
 whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarry with any slave, 
 from and after the last day of the present assembly, shall serve 
 the master of such slave during the life of her husband ; and 
 that all the issue of such free-born women, so married, shall 
 be slaves as their FATHERS were. 7 
 
 This law is remarkable for two particulars: First, the recog 
 nition of the common law doctrine, " partus sequitur patrem" 
 that the offspring follows the condition of the father: Second, 
 the pur auter vie slavery to which it subjected the white free- 
 born English women who might come within its provisions. 
 The number of this new species of slaves must have been very 
 small, and as the act had but a short duration, it is unnecessary 
 to take further notice of this branch of it. With respect to the 
 offspring of such marriages consummated while the act was in 
 force, as these were made slaves for life; and as an act passed 
 in 1681, for the purpose of repealing that of 1663, contained an 
 express saving of the rights acquired under the act of 1663, 
 before the date of the repealing act, so far as concerned the 
 enslavement of the ivoman AND HER ISSUE, it is not improbable 
 that some of their descendants arc at the present day in that 
 condition. * 
 
 * It is certain several such persons were held in absolute bondage until the 
 year 1791, when (after the lapse of more than a century) it was finally decided 
 by the highest court of judicature in the state, that for want of a conviction of the 
 vihite woman who originally violated the law, her descendants were not slaves, 
 and could not legally be retained as such. See the case, Mary Butler vs. Mam 
 Craig, 2 Harris and M Henry s Reports, 214 to 236. At a former period, (1770) 
 in a case in which the parents of the same Mary Butler were plaintiffs and pe 
 titioners for freedom, it was adjudged that they were slaves their grandmo 
 ther, a white woman, having been married to a negro slave in the year 1681, 
 a short time prior to the repeal of the act of 1663. Case of William and Mary 
 Sutler vs. Richard Boardman, 1 Maryland (Harris and M Henry s) Reports, 
 371 to 385. 
 
 A statement of one of the counsel for the petitioners in this latter case, as 
 it serves to elucidate this anomalous portion of the history of slavery in Mary 
 land, is here transcribed. "In the year 1676, the lord proprietary met 
 the assembly in person ; in 1677 he returned to England., and in 1681 he re- 
 
11 
 
 The doctrine of " partus sequitur patrem" obtained in the 
 province till the year 1699 or 1700,* when a general revision 
 of the laws took place, and the acts, in which this doctrine was 
 recognised, were, with many others, repealed. An interval of 
 about fifteen years appears to have elapsed without any written 
 law on this subject; but, in 1715, (chap. 44, sect. 22,) the fol 
 lowing one was passed : " All negroes and other slaves already 
 imported or hereafter to be imported into this province, and all 
 children now born or hereafter to be born of such negroes and 
 slaves, shall be slaves during their natural lives." Thus was 
 the maxim of the civil law, " partus sequitur ventrem," intro 
 duced, and the condition of the mother, from that day up to the 
 present time, has continued to determine the fate of the child. 
 
 This maxim of the civil law, the genuine and degrading prin 
 ciple of slavery, inasmuch as it places the slave upon a level with 
 brute animals, prevails universally among the slave-holding 
 states. The law of South Carolina may be quoted as follows: 
 " All negroes, Indians, (free Indians in amity with this govern 
 ment, and negroes, mulattoes and mestizos, who are now free, 
 excepted,) mulattoes or mestizos, who now are or shall hereafter 
 be in this province, and all their issue and offspring born or to 
 
 turned to this province, bringing Irish Nell" (Eleanor Butler, grandmother 
 of the petitioners, who I presume were first cousins, as they were both 
 petitioners for freedom as the descendants of the same parent, and were 
 also husband and wife) " with him as a domestic servant. In 1681 she mar- 
 ried," (a negro slave) " and the repealing law was passed in the month of 
 August immediately after the marriage, and his lordship interested himself in 
 procuring the repeal, with a view to this particular case. The act of 1663 was 
 repealed also, to prevent persons from purchasing white women" (as servants) 
 " and marrying them to their slaves, for the purpose of making slaves of them" 
 (and their offspring.) " The penalty is laid upon the masters, mistresses, &c. 
 and the clergyman and the woman are intended to be favoured." This state 
 ment, though not very creditable to the early settlers of Maryland, is confirm 
 ed by the preamble to the repealing act, and also by the terms of the enacting 
 clause ; for it sets free any such white servant woman, and imposes a fine of 
 ten thousand pounds of tobacco upon the master or mistress who should pro 
 cure or connive at the marriage. Act of 1681, chap. 4. 
 
 * See the act of 1699, chap. 46, entitled " An act ascertaining the laws of 
 this province;" and the act of 1700, chap. 8, entitled "An act for repealing 
 certain laws in this province, and confirming 1 others." 
 
12 
 
 be born, shall be and they are hereby declared to be and remain 
 for ever hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition 
 of the mother." Act of 1740, 2 Brevard s Digest, 229; simi 
 lar in Georgia, Prince s Dig. 446, (act of 1770) ; and in Mis 
 sissippi, Revised Code of Mississippi, 0/1823, page 369; and 
 see 1 Rev. Code of Virg. (of 1 8 1 9 ) page 42 1 ; 2 Litt. and Swi. 
 1149-50, Civ. Code of Louisiana, art. 183. By this law, any 
 person whose maternal ancestor, even in the remotest degree of 
 distance from him or her, can be shown to have been a negro, or 
 an Indian, or a mulatto, or a mestizo, not free at the date of the 
 law, although the paternal ancestor at each successive genera 
 tion may have been a white free 7nan, is declared to be the 
 subject of perpetual slavery. This is a measure of cruelty* 
 
 * Under this law it may frequently happen, that a person whose complexion 
 is European may be legally retained as a slave. The well informed mind will, 
 upon a little reflection, perceive the justness of this conclusion. A competent 
 judge of the subject, Don Anthonio de Ulloa, whose opinion is confirmed by 
 that of Mr. Edwards in his History of the West Indies, furnishes the foUowing 
 testimony: " Among the tribes which are derived from an intermixture of the 
 whites with the negroes, the first are the mulattoes,- next to these are the ter- 
 cerones, produced from a white and a mulatto, with some approximation to the 
 former, but not so near as to obliterate their origin. After these follow the 
 quarterones, proceeding from a white and a terceron. The last are the quinte- 
 rones, who owe their origin to a white and a quarteron. This is the last gra 
 dation, there being no visible difference between them and the whites, either in colour 
 or features; NAY, THEY ARE OFTEN FAIRER THAN THE SPANIARDS." See Ed 
 wards West Indies, book 4, chap. 1. Thus the quinterones, who are only four 
 removes from a negro ancestor, are found to be undistinguishable from the 
 whites, either by colour or features. Yet even these, and the descendants 
 of these to the remotest generation, are deemed slaves with us. In point of 
 fact, tercermes are sometimes almost, if not entirely white. An instance of" 
 this kind occurred in an individual, whose case underwent judicial investiga 
 tion in the city of Philadelphia, in the year 1786; the report of which appears 
 in 1 Dallas Rep. 167, Pirate alias Belt vs. Dalby. The reporter s statement is 
 given in these words: " The plaintiff, being the supposed issue of white and 
 mulatto parents, attended the defendant to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1784, 
 and presented so pure a complexion, that the attention of the Society (Abolition 
 Society of Pennsylvania) was excited, &c. &c. Upon the trial it was given in 
 evidence, that the plaintiff was born in Maryland of an unmarried mulatto wo 
 man" (who was a slave.) 
 
 I shall now quote another instance, of a most extraordinary character of 
 white children the immediate offspring of a negro mother; and though this may 
 
IS 
 
 and avarice which, to the reproach of our republics, there is 
 much reason to believe has no precedent in any other civilized 
 country. " In Jamaica, the condition (of slavery) ceases by 
 express law to attach upon the issue, at the fourth degree of 
 distance from a negro ancestor. In other islands, (British West 
 Indies,) the written law is silent on this head; but by estab 
 lished custom, the quadroons or mestizoes (so they call the se- 
 cpnd and third degrees) are rarely seen in a state of slavery. " 
 
 be looked upon as a lusus naturae, to which no reasonable person would ex 
 pect the general laws of society to be accommodated, yet, as it proves incon- 
 testably that whites are now in slavery in one of our states, under the express 
 sanction of law, I will make no apology for introducing it. The instance to 
 which I refer, is thus related by Laurence J. Trotti, in a letter to Professor 
 James, of the University of Pennsylvania, dated November 15th, 1825. " Some 
 time in the year 1815, a negro woman, belonging to Mr. Allen, of Barnwell, 
 South Carolina, was delivered by a natural unassisted labour of three children; 
 two of them were white males, the other a perfectly black female. The two 
 boys are now alive and full grown for their age. Having, in company with 
 other gentlemen, visited the mother and children, expressly to ascertain the 
 truth of these facts, I have no hesitation in stating the above mentioned circum 
 stances as correct," &c. &c. See The North American Medical and Surgical 
 Journal, No. 2, April 1826, page 466. From the character of the Journal from 
 which this account has been taken, and especially in reliance upon the judg 
 ment of the highly respectable gentleman to whom the letter is addressed, I 
 have treated the whole relation as substantially true. I confess, there is some 
 thing (particularly the distance of time between the birth of the children and 
 the date of the communication) which leaves room to doubt whether an impo 
 sition has not been practised on the writer of the letter whether the white 
 children were not born of -white parents; yet, admitting this supposition to be 
 correct, it would fortify the position, that our lawgivers should pay some re 
 spect to colour ; for here are two white children who have been already in 
 slavery more than ten years, and in all probability they will remain so during 
 life. 
 
 An additional case may be here subjoined, illustrative of the general doc 
 trine contained in this note. An advertisement recently inserted in a news 
 paper published in the city of Philadelphia, offers a reward of one hundred 
 dollars for the apprehension of a person alleged to be a runaway slave, who is 
 thus described: " Absconded from the subscriber on the 10th instant, a very 
 bright mulatto man named Washington Thomas. HE HAS SOMETIMES BEEN 
 MISTAKEN FOR A WHITE MAN!!" What the degree of distance of this per 
 son from an African ancestor is, does not appear; yet, though more than once 
 taken for a white man, he is still claimed as a slave! ! See Democratic Press 
 of August 13, 182r. 
 
 
14 
 
 Stephen s Slavery of the British West India Colonies deline 
 ated, 21 ; Edwards West Indies, book 4, chap. 1. And, a& 
 in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, slavery is in all respects 
 milder than in those of the British, it is fairly inferrible that a 
 regulation equally favourable to freedom, by custom, if not by 
 express law, prevails there also. Of the French colonies and of 
 the Dutch, I have not such information as will authorize an 
 opinion which may deserve much reliance ; yet, in the Code 
 Noir it is certain many provisions may be indicated, of a much 
 more humane character than can can be found in the codes of 
 our slave-holding states, on kindred topics. 
 
 It has been already incidentally noticed, that by the common 
 law, the law of Villanage, the offspring always followed the 
 condition of \hc, father: it has been also stated, and indeed the 
 law which I have just extracted, declares this principle in une 
 quivocal terms, that, with respect to slavery among us, the con 
 dition of the offspring depends upon the condition of the mother. 
 A consequence of this latter rule is, that whether born in or out 
 of wedlock, the children are slaves whenever the mothers are 
 so. But as to the child born out of wedlock, while from mo 
 tives of public policy the common law prevents him from de 
 riving any benefit from his parents, by way of inheritance, it 
 declares, with a consistency strongly recommended by its huma 
 nity, that he shall not be obnoxious to the evils of slavery. 
 Had these two maxims of the common law, i. e. that the off 
 spring follows the condition of the father, and, that an illegiti 
 mate is always born free, been permitted to retain their place 
 in colonial jurisprudence, none but negroes of the whole blood 
 (except from the rare instances of a matrimonial alliance between 
 a free woman not black and an abject negro slave) would be 
 numbered among the victims of slavery! ! Every mulatto, ex 
 cept from the source just mentioned, would have been free a 
 destiny, at which, though it may have no claim to support it 
 superior to what may be avouched for the negro, yet, inasmuch 
 as it would have prevented the tremendous augmentation of our 
 servile population, the evils of which are daily more and more 
 felt, humanity and religion would have had cause to rejoice. 
 
 I am aware of a reply which may be given to these remarks. 
 
15 
 
 It, may be said, " True, on your principles, no mulatto would 
 be a slave negroes only would be such; still it would be neces 
 sary only to encourage matrimony among slaves, and the de 
 crease of slaves, which you consider so important, would not 
 happen. " Without stopping to show that this view of the mat 
 ter is not altogether correct, it may be justly rejoined, that this 
 very encouragement to matrimony would, in itself, be of vast 
 moment, from its moral effects; and, furthermore, (what ought 
 by "no means to be lost sight of,) since while the parties to a 
 marriage contract are in full life, neither of them can lawfully 
 enter into a similar contract with a third person, the master s 
 interest, or what he conceives to be so, would in a great degree 
 avert the terrible calamity, which is now common a separa 
 tion of the parents of the same children a separation of those 
 who ought to be strictly and legally husband and wife. 
 
 It may excite the surprise of some, to discover Indians and 
 their offspring comprised in the doom of perpetual slavery; yet 
 not only is incidental mention of them as slaves to be met with 
 in the laws of most of the states of our confederacy, but in one 
 at least, direct legislation may be cited to sanction their enslave 
 ment. In Virginia, "By an act passed in the year 1679, it 
 was, for the better encouragement of soldiers, declared, that 
 what INDIAN PRISONERS should be taken in a war in which 
 the colony was then engaged, should be free purchase to the 
 soldiers taking them. In 1682, it was declared, that all ser 
 vants brought into this country, (Virginia) by sea or land, not 
 being Christians, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes or INDI 
 ANS, (except Turks and Moors in amity with Great Britain,) 
 and all INDIANS which should thereafter be SOLD by neighbour 
 ing Indians, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, should be 
 SLAVES to all intents and purposes."* Per Judge Tucker, in 
 
 * " These acts," says Judge Tucker, speaking of the acts cited in the text, 
 " continued in force till the year 1691, when an act having 1 been passed, 
 authorizing a free and open trade for all persons, at all times and at all places, 
 with all Indians whatsoever, it was decided by the courts, that this operated as 
 a repeal of the former acts." See 1 Henning and Munfortfs Reports, 139. The 
 descendants of such Indians as were reduced to slavery under the sanction of 
 the acts of 1679 and 1682, and during the time in which these were in force, 
 
16 
 
 the case of Hudgins vs. Wright, 1 Henning and Munford-$ 
 Reports, 139. 
 
 And, in the state of New Jersey, it was decided by the su 
 preme court, in the year 1797, "flMft Indians might be held 
 as slaves. " No law was adduced to show the origination of such 
 a right, but it appeared by several acts of assembly, one of which 
 was as early as 1713-14, that they were classed with negroes 
 and mulattoes, as slaves. Chief Justice Kinsey remarked, 
 " They (Indians) have been so long recognised as slaves, in our 
 law, that it would be as great a violation of the rights of property 
 to establish a contrary doctrine at the present day, as it would 
 in the case of Africans; and as useless to investigate the man 
 ner in which they ORIGINALLY lost their freedom. " The State 
 vs. Waggoner, 1 Halstead s Reports, 374 to 376. 
 
 In addition to the laws already cited, declaring who shall be 
 deemed slaves, the codes of the slave-holding states exhibit a 
 considerable number of enactments, by which FREE negroes, 
 &c. are converted into absolute slaves. Thus, in South Caro 
 lina, if zfree negro harbour, conceal or ENTERTAIN a runaway 
 slave, or a slave charged " with any criminal matter," he shall 
 forfeit the sum of ten pounds currency for the first day, and 
 twenty shillings for every succeeding day, &c. And in case 
 such forfeitures cannot be levied, or such free negro, &c. shall 
 not pay the same, together with the charges attending the prose 
 cution, such FREE negro, &c. shall be ordered by the justice to 
 be sold at public outcry, and the money arising by such sale 
 shall, in the first place, be paid for and applied towards the for 
 feiture, &c. to the owner, &c. ; and the overplus, if any, shall 
 
 may even at the present time be held as slaves in Virginia! ! But the deci 
 sions of the courts protect all others. The highest court of judicature has de 
 cided, that " a native American Indian brought into Virginia since the year 
 1691, could not lawfully be held in slavery there, although such Indian was a 
 slave in the country (Jamaica) from which she had been brought, previously 
 to and at the time of her removal." Butt vs. Rachel, 4 Munford s Reports, 209. 
 See also, 2 Henning and Munford s Reports, 149, Pallas and others vs. Hill and 
 others, in which cases the claim to freedom of at least twelve descendants of 
 native American Indians, whose maternal ancestors had not been reduced to 
 slavery till after 1691, was established, 
 
17 
 
 be paid by the said justice into the hands of the public trea 
 surer,* &c. 2 Brevard s Digest, 237, act of 1740. 
 
 * I have, in the text, considered the whole of the 34th section of the act of 
 1740, as the law of South Carolina at the present time. A very recent pro 
 ceeding in one of the judicial tribunals of that state, is my justification for so 
 doing-. The subjoined extract from the Charleston Courier of the 13th August, 
 1827, details the proceeding to which reference is here made: "A trial of 
 much interest took place ou Saturday last, at the City Hall, before a court, 
 composed of John Michel, Esq. Justice of the Quorum, and two Freeholders. The 
 parties put upon their trial were Hannah Elliott, a free black woman, together 
 with her daughter Judy, and her sons Simon and Sam. They were severally 
 indicted under the act of 1740, for harbouring, concealing, entertaining two 
 female children, aged about six and nine years, the property of a lady of this 
 city, the extraordinary concealment and discovery of which, was mentioned a 
 short time since. 
 
 " After a patient investigation of all the circumstances of the case, the pri 
 soners having the aid of able counsel, the court found them all guilty, and sen 
 tenced them, in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid act, as follows: 
 Hannah Elliott, with having harboured these slaves, for the term of two years; 
 and her children with having harboured them respectively, for sixteen months 
 each. The penalty under the act, is a forfeiture of ten pounds currency for the 
 first day, and twenty shillings currency for every day after, to the use of the 
 owner of any slave so harboured, concealed or entertained. The act also pro 
 vides, that, in case the forfeiture cannot be levied on such free negro, together 
 with the charges attending the prosecution, the parties must be sold, at pub 
 lic outcry, and the money arising from such sale be applied, in the first place, 
 towards the forfeiture due to the owner, &c. and the overplus, if any, be paid 
 into the public treasury/ 
 
 Newspapers of later dates confirm this statement, and inform us, what might 
 naturally have been anticipated, that the unhappy convicts, being unable to 
 satisfy the enormous penalties which had been imposed upon them, were sold 
 at public outcry, ten days after the trial, for slaves during life. 
 
 But, notwithstanding this decision of the Charleston court, I have no doubt, 
 that the act of 1740, so far as concerns the offence of free negroes, mulattoes or 
 mestizoes, in harbouring, concealing or entertaining a runaway slave, NOT CHARGED 
 WITH ANY CRIMINAL MATTER, is repealed. On the 20th December, 1821, the 
 legislature of South Carolina enacted a law in these words: If any free negro, 
 mulatto or mestizo, shall harbour, conceal or entertain any fugitive or runaway 
 slave, and be convicted thereof before two justices and Jive freeholders, he shall 
 suffer such corporeal punishment, not extending to life or limb, as the said 
 justices and freeholders, who try such offender, shall in their discretion think 
 fit." See Acts of the Session of Dec. 1821, page 20; and James Digest, 390. 
 
 By comparing these two acts together, it will be perceived that they agree 
 in the description of the offence to be provided against, while they differ in 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 So, " in case any slave shall be emancipated or set free, other 
 wise than according to the act (of 1800) regulating emancipa 
 tions, it shall be lawful for any person whosoever to seize and 
 convert to his or her own use, and to keep as his or her pro 
 perty the said slave so illegally emancipated or set free." 
 2 Brevard s Digest, 256. And see Hayward s Manual, 525, 
 act of 1111. 
 
 And in Virginia, " If* any emancipated slave (infants ex- 
 cepted) shall remain within the state more than twelve months 
 after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she 
 shall forfeit all such right, and may be apprehended and sold 
 
 two important particulars: first, as to the tribunal before which offenders 
 against the law are to be tried: secondly, in the punishment to be inflicted on 
 conviction. Under the act of 1T40, the tribunal consists of one justice and two 
 freeholders, as is stated in another section of the same act: and the act of 1821 
 expressly directs a tribunal composed of two justices andyfoe freeholders. JBy 
 the former act, two (a majority) members of the court, can convict or acquit: 
 according to the latter, four are necessary for either purpose. On the suppo 
 sition that both acts are in force, the offender may be tried and punished twice 
 for one and the same offence a conclusion, which is forbidden by a principle 
 of criminal jurisprudence, which has no exception in the laws of any civilized 
 country, namely, that " no man can be placed in peril of legal penalties more 
 than once upon the same accusation." 1 Ckitty s Criminal Law, 452; 4 Bla, 
 Com. 335. The provisions of the two acts are therefore manifestly inconsist 
 ent with each other, in which case, although words of express repeal are not 
 used in the latter act, yet by implication it repeals the former, the old statute 
 always giving place to the new, where both cannot stand together. 1 Bl, 
 Com. 89. 
 
 The only argument by which the position, that both acts are in force, can be 
 jnaintained, is, that the penalties are cumulative. This, however, can take 
 place only where but one conviction is required; whereas, it has been shown 
 above, that two are necessary according to these acts, inasmuch as two distinct 
 tribunals for trial are appointed. 
 
 * The late President Jefferson, having, by his last will, emancipated five 
 slaves, for whom he appears to have entertained much personal regard ; in 
 consequence of this section, made the following pathetic appeal to the legis 
 lature of his native state : " I humbly and earnestly request of the legislature of 
 Virginia, a confirmation of the bequests to these servants, with permission to 
 remain in this state, where their families and connexions are, as an additional 
 instance of the favour, of which I have received so many other manifestations 
 in the course of my life, and for which 1 now give them my solemn and dutiful 
 thanks." 
 
19 
 
 by the overseers of the poor, &c. for the benefit of THE LITE 
 RARY FUND!!" I Rev. Code, 436. 
 
 By an act of Georgia, (December 19, 1818,) a penalty of a 
 fine of one hundred dollars is incurred by any free person of 
 colour, (Indians in amity with the state, and regularly articled 
 seamen, &c. arriving in any ship, &c. excepted,) for coming 
 into the state; and " upon failure to pay the same within the 
 time prescribed in the sentence. &c. he, she or they shall be 
 liable to be sold by public outcry as a slave," &c. Prince s 
 Digest, 465; and see 467. 
 
 In Mississippi, every negro or mulatto found within the state, 
 and not having the ability* to show himself entitled to free 
 dom, may be sold, by order of the court, as a slave. Missis 
 sippi Rev. Code, 389. 
 
 Maryland, in 1717, (chap. 13, sect. 5,) adopted these provi 
 sions: " If any free negro or mulatto intermarry with any 
 white woman, or if any white man shall intermarry with any 
 negro or mulatto woman, such negro or mulatto shall become 
 a slave during life, except mulattoes born of white women, 
 who, &c. shall become servants for seven years." 
 
 Another copious source of slavery, the condemnation under 
 laws of several of the slave-holding states, made specifically for 
 this purpose, of natives of Africa, brought into the United States 
 in violation of the act of congress of March 2, 1807, entitled 
 " An act to prohibit the importation of slaves, &c. from and 
 after the first day of January, 1808" I shall defer the consi 
 deration of, to a subsequent chapter. See the Appendix, 
 chap. 2. 
 
 Before quitting this chapter, it may not be amiss to notice 
 cursorily, a species of SERVITUDE, (growing out of slavery,) 
 which is peculiar, it is thought, to our country. It originated 
 most probably in the province of Maryland, and will be readily 
 apprehended from the subjoined extract from the act of that 
 province in 1663, chap. 20, sect. 3: "All the ISSUE of English 
 
 * The extreme hardship of this law will be seen, when I come to treat of 
 the exclusion of negroes, mulattoes, &c. as witnesses, where the interest of 
 white persons is in question. 
 
20 
 
 or other free-born women, that have already married negroes? 
 shall serve the master of their parents till they be thirty years 
 of age, and no longer. " This act having been annulled in 1699 
 or 1700, was revived in principle by the act of 1715, chap. 44, 
 sect. 26, with an extension of one year to the period of servi 
 tude fixed by the old law. The same provision shortly after 
 wards recommended itself to the general assembly of Pennsyl 
 vania,* and may be found incorporated in an act passed March 
 5th, 1725-6, entitled " An act for the better regulating of ne 
 groes in this province." In 1741, chap. 24, sect. 18, it became 
 the law of North Carolina, where, as also in Tennessee, it is 
 presumed to be in force at the present time. With respect to 
 Maryland, it is necessary to add, that the progressive light of 
 nearly a century and a half has at length enabled her to discover, 
 as is declared in the act of 1796, chap. 67, sect. 14, that "it is 
 contrary to the dictates of humanity and the principles of the 
 Christian religion, to inflict personal penalties on children for 
 the offence of their parents;" and this species of servitude has, 
 in that state, been accordingly abolished. 
 
 * I have been careful to note with particularity the act of assembly of Penn 
 sylvania, which gave rise to this species of servitude, chiefly because the late 
 Judge Rush, has inadvertently stated, that usage was the authority upon which 
 it was founded. See Respublica vs. Negro Betsey et al, 1 Dallas Reports, 475, 
 
21 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OP THE INCIDENTS OF SLAVERY. 
 
 WITH the present chapter I propose to begin an examination 
 of the nature and legal incidents of slavery. And in doing so, 
 I will, in the first place, treat of the laws which regard the slave 
 as property. This will comprehend such laws only as concern 
 the relation of master and slave. Afterwards, those which 
 treat of the slave as a member of civil society will be dis 
 cussed. 
 
 The civil law, except where, modified by statute or by usages 
 which have acquired the force of law, is generally referred to 
 in the slave-holding states, as containing the true principles of 
 the institution. It will be proper, therefore, to give an abstract 
 of its leading doctrines; for which purpose, I use Dr. Taylor s 
 Elements of the Civil Law, page 429. " Slaves," says he, 
 " were held pro nullis: pro mortuis: pro quadrupedibus. 
 They had no head in the state, no name, title or register: they 
 were not capable of being injured: nor could they take by pur 
 chase or descent: they had no heirs, and therefore could make 
 no will : exclusive of what was called their peculium^ whatever 
 they acquired was their master s: they could not plead nor be 
 pleaded for, but were excluded from all civil concerns whatever: 
 they could not claim the indulgence of absence reipublicse causa: 
 they were not entitled to the rights and considerations of matri 
 mony, and therefore had no relief in case of adultery: nor were 
 they proper objects of cognation or affinity, but of quasi-cogna- 
 tion only: they could be sold, transferred or pawned as goods or 
 personal estate; for goods they were, and as such they were 
 esteemed: they might be tortured for evidence: punished at the 
 discretion of their lord, or even put to death by his authority." 
 This description is to be taken as applicable to the condition of 
 slaves at an early period of the Roman history; for before the 
 fall of the Roman empire, several important changes had been 
 
\ 
 
 22 
 
 introduced favourable to the slave. By the lex Cornelia de 
 sicariis, the killing of a slave became punishable. Dig- 488, 
 Cooper s Justinian, 411. The jus vita3 et necis claimed by the 
 master, was restrained by Claudius, the successor of Caligula. 
 Ibid. The emperor Adrian prohibited generally cruel treatment 
 towards slaves; and he banished Umbricia, a lady of quality, for 
 five years, quod ex levissimis causis suas ancillas,* atrocissime 
 tractasset. Cooper s Justinian, 412. Antoninus Pius applied 
 the lex Cornelia de sicariis, specifically to the masters of slaves; 
 and the same law was strengthened by Severus and by Constan- 
 tine. Ibid. Slaves might always induce an investigation by 
 flying to the statues of the princes. Ibid. 
 
 I believe it will be found upon a close comparison, that the 
 condition of the slave, in our slave-holding states, so far as the 
 latu may be invoked in his behalf, is but little, if in any re 
 spect, better than was that of the Roman slave under the civil 
 law. According to the law of Louisiana, " A slave is one who 
 is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master 
 may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and his labour: 
 he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but 
 what must belong to his master." Civil Code, art. 35. As to 
 the master s power to punish his slave, a limitation seems to 
 be contemplated by the following article: " The slave is entirely 
 subject to the will of his master, who may correct and chastise 
 him, though not with unusual rigour, or so as to maim or 
 mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, 
 or to cause his death." *ftrt. 173. Yet, as will be fully demon 
 strated hereafter, no such limitation actually exists, or can_by 
 
 With respect to the other slave-holding states, as none of these 
 have adopted entire written codes, enunciations of such a gene 
 ral nature, as are exhibited in the quotations just made from the 
 law of Louisiana, are not to be expected. Nevertheless, the 
 cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked 
 
 * Because for very slight causes she had treated her female slaves very 
 cruelly. 
 
23 
 
 among sentient beings, but among things* is an article of pro 
 perty a chattel personalobtains as undoubted law in all of 
 these states. In South Carolina it is expressed in the following 
 language: " Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and 
 adjudged in law to be chattels personal^ in the hands of their 
 
 * An apt illustration of this doctrine, is presented in an act of Maryland, of 
 1798, Chap. CI. ch. 12. No. 12. The following is the language of this enlight 
 ened state: " In case the personal property of a ward shall consist of specific 
 articles, such as SLAVES, WORKING BEASTS, ANIMALS OF ANY KIND, stock, furni 
 ture, plate, books, AND so FORTH, the court, if it shall deem it advantageous for 
 the ward, may at any time pass an order for the sale thereof," &c. &c. 
 
 f In Louisiana, " Slaves though moveable by their nature," says the civil 
 code, "are considered as immoveable by the operation of law." Art, 461. And 
 by act of assembly of June 7, 1806, " Slaves shall always be reputed and con 
 sidered real estate; shall be, as such, subject to be mortgaged, according to 
 the rules prescribed by law, and they shall be seized and sold as real estate." 
 1 Martin s Digest, 612. And in Kentucky, by the law of descents, they are con 
 sidered real estate, 2 Litt. and Sui. Digest. 1155, and pass in consequence to 
 heirs and not to executors. They are, however, liable as chattels to be sold by 
 the master at his pleasure, and may be taken in execution for the payment of 
 his debts. Ibid, and see 1247. A law (act of 1705) similar to that of Kentucky, 
 once obtained in Virginia, but it was repealed after a short experiment. See 
 note to 1 Rev. Code, 432. 
 
 In Massachusetts and Connecticut, and probably in the whole country which 
 used to bear the name of New England, the harsh features of slavery were 
 never known. In Massachusetts colony, so early as in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand six hundred and forty-one, the following law was made : " It is 
 ordered by this court and the authority thereof, that there shall never be any 
 bond slavery, villenage or captivity among us, unless it be lawful captives taken 
 in just war, (such) as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us; and such shall 
 have the liberties and CHRISTIAN usage which the law of GOD ESTABLISHED IN 
 ISRAEL concerning such persons doth morally require." See General Laws and 
 Liberties of Massachusetts Bay, chap. 12, sect. 2. Though the phraseology of 
 this law savour more of Hibernia than is supposed to be common to New Eng 
 land, yet its meaning is sufficiently palpable. That the law was not a dead 
 letter, we have the authority which may be collected from an opinion delivered 
 in the case of Winchenden vs. Hatfield, 4 Mass. Rep. 127-8, by Chief Justice Par 
 sons. " Slavery," says he, " was introduced into this country soon after its 
 first settlement. The slave was the property of the master, subject to his or 
 ders, and to reasonable correction for misbehaviour. If the master was guilty 
 of a cruel or unreasonable castigation of his slave, he was liable to be punished 
 for the breach of the peace, and, I believe, the slave was allowed to demand sure- 
 ties of the peace against a violent and barbarous master. Tinder these regu- 
 
24 
 
 owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators and 
 assigns, to all intent s> constructions and purposes whatsoever. 
 2 Brev. Dig. 229 ; Prince s Digest, 446, fyc. fyc. Absolute des 
 potism needs not a more comprehensive grant of power than 
 that which is here conferred. And though the particular design 
 of the law-makers in framing this section was merely to declare 
 of what nature whether real or personal estate slaves as pro 
 perty should be regarded, yet it is not on that account the less 
 appropriate for the purpose to which I apply it. It is strictly 
 consonant with an inflexible principle of their acknowledged 
 law. 
 
 Viewing the language, " that a slave shall be deemed a 
 chattel personal in the hands of his owner, to all intents, 
 constructions and purposes whatsoever, 77 in this light, it is 
 plain that the dominion of the master is as unlimited, as is that 
 which is tolerated by the laws of any civilized country in rela 
 tion to brute animals to quadrupeds, to use the words of the 
 civil law. How far the existing state of slavery, as by law es 
 tablished and protected, may conform to this deduction, will 
 best appear by a more minute investigation of the subject. And 
 in order to simplify the inquiry, and to enable the reader to 
 arrive at a proper conclusion without difficulty, I shall subjoin, 
 in distinct propositions, what will be found to be corollaries 
 
 lations, the treatment of slaves was in general mild and humane, and they suf 
 fered hardships not greater than hired servants." 
 
 And in Connecticut, Judge Reeve, speaking of slavery there, holds this lan 
 guage : " The law, as heretofore practised in this state, respecting slaves, must 
 now be uninteresting. I will, however, lest the slavery which prevailed in this 
 state should be forgotten, mention some things, that show that slavery here 
 was very far from being of the absolute, rigid kind. The master had no con 
 trol over the life of his slave. If he killed him, he was liable to the same pun 
 ishment as if he killed a freeman. The master was as liable to be sued by the 
 slave, in an action for beating or wounding, or for immoderate chastisement, 
 as he would be if he had thus treated an apprentice. A slave was capable of 
 holding property, in character of devisee or legatee. If the master should 
 take away such property, his slave would be entitled to an action against him, 
 by his prochein ami (next friend.) From the whole we see, that slaves had the 
 same right of life and property as apprentices; and that the difference betwixt 
 them was this: an apprentice is a servant for time, and the slave is a servant 
 for life." Reeve s Law of Barm tf Femme, &?c. 340-1. 
 
25 
 
 from the act of South Carolina; and, in connexion with each of 
 them, such laws as may be specifically applicable will be quoted, 
 and their just bearing indicated. 
 
 Prop. I. The master may determine the kind, and degree, 
 and time of labour, to which the slave shall be 
 subjected. 
 
 II. 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. 
 
 III. The master may, at his discretion, inflict any pun 
 
 ishment upon the person of his slave. 
 
 IV. 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. 
 V. Slaves have no legal rights of property in things, 
 real or personal; but whatever they may acquire 
 belongs, in point of law, to their masters. 
 VI. The slave being a personal chattel, is at all times 
 liable to be sold absolutely, or mortgaged or 
 leased, at the will of his master. 
 
 VII. He may also be sold by process of law for the satis 
 
 faction of the debts of a living, or the debts and 
 bequests of a deceased master, at the suit of cre 
 ditors or legatees. 
 
 VIII. 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. 
 
 IX Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a 
 change of masters, though cruel treatment may 
 have rendered such change necessary for their 
 personal safety. 
 
 X, Slaves being objects of property, if injured by third 
 persons, their owners may bring suit, and recover 
 damages, for the injury. 
 XL Slaves can make no contract. 
 XII. Slavery is hereditary and perpetual, 
 4 
 
26 
 
 Preparatively to the separate discussion of the above propo 
 sitions, the remark may be made, as applicable to each, that the 
 absence of a legislative change as to the law of the proposition, 
 is always to be taken as an implication that it exists as is therein 
 stated. For the propositions, it will be recollected, are corol 
 laries from the express general law. 
 
 Prop. I. THE MASTER MAY DETERMINE THE KIND, AND DE 
 GREE, AND TIME OF LABOUR, TO WHICH THE SLAVE SHALL BE . 
 SUBJECTED. 
 
 In most of the slave-holding states, the law is silent on this 
 topic. There can be no doubt, therefore, as I have just inti 
 mated, that it is given correctly in the terms of the proposition, 
 As to the silence of the law, the codes of Georgia, South Caro 
 lina, Louisiana and Mississippi, furnish exceptions with what 
 efficacy, will be shown in the succeeding observations. One of 
 these exceptions is as follows: 
 
 " If any person shall on the Lord s day, commonly called 
 Sunday, employ any slave in any work or labour, (works of ab 
 solute 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 labour. " Act of May 10, 1770; Prince s Digest, 
 455. So in Mississippi, under a penalty of two dollars. Rev. 
 Code, 317; Act of June 13, 1822. 
 
 66 Any owner or owners of a slave or slaves, who shall cruelly 
 beat* such slave or slaves, by unnecessary or excessive whip 
 ping, by withholding proper food and sustenance, by requiring 
 greater labour from such slave or slaves than he or she or they 
 are able to perform, by not affording proper clothing, whereby 
 the health of such slave or slaves may be injured and impaired, 
 every such owner or owners shall, upon sufficient information 
 being laid before the grand jury, be by said grand jury presented, 
 whereupon it shall be the duty of the attorney or solicitor gene 
 ral to prosecute said owner or owners, who, on conviction, shall 
 
 * Beat is the word used in Prince s Digest, from which the citation is made. 
 To make sense, treat .should he substituted. 
 
27 
 
 be sentenced to pay a fine, or be imprisoned, or both, at the dis 
 cretion of the court. " Prince s Digest, 376 (act of 1817.) 
 
 The ostensible design of these laws, is to afford protection to 
 the slave. But, unfortunately for the oppressed, a single fact 
 proves that the " promised good" is almost, if not altogether 
 illusory. It is an inflexible and universal rule of slave law, 
 (to which more particular attention will he hereafter given,) 
 founded in one or two states upon usage, in others sanctioned 
 by express legislation, THAT THE TESTIMONY OP A COLOURED 
 
 PERSON, WHETHER BOND OR FREE, CANNOT BE RECEIVED AGAINST 
 
 A WHITE PERSON!!! It is scarcely necessary to add another 
 word to substantiate the allegation, that these laws of Georgia 
 ought to be considered entirely and unqualifiedly nugatory. 
 By way of illustration, however, suppose a slave, by the com 
 mand of his master, and through terror of his displeasure and 
 punishment, is discovered, employed on the Sabbath, in the 
 ordinary labours of the field. It may be assumed that the mas 
 ter is apprised of the prohibition of the law. He knows equally 
 well too, that the testimony of a white man only can be pro 
 duced against him. He will, of course, obey the dictate of com 
 mon prudence, a sufficient share of which, for this purpose, 
 every man possesses, and issue his commands to the slave in 
 the absence of a white man. How, then, can he be convicted 
 of this offence ? or in what manner can the law be enforced? 
 It must be a dead letter. It can serve no valuable end. For 
 any benefit it yields the slave, it might as well not have been 
 passed. 
 
 The same objections apply to the clause in the second section 
 which has been cited, and which comes within the scope of the 
 proposition under present consideration, i. e. " The requiring 
 greater labour from such slave or slaves than he, she or they 
 are able to perform." Indeed, the difficulty in effecting a con 
 viction is increased, inasmuch as the charge is by the law of a 
 criminal nature every thing must therefore be strictly proved 
 the law itself must be construed strictly and, such a con 
 struction, without doubt, requires that all the illegal circum 
 stances enumerated in the section should exist at the same time, 
 
28 
 
 and be proved against the master, to constitute the single crime 
 of cruelty to the slave, 
 
 There is an obscurity and confusion in the penning of this 
 law, which will strike every one with surprise, who is not in 
 some degree acquainted with slave laws, There is an omission 
 too, which deserves notice. The cruelty of the owner only, is 
 made penal in the section; while the exaction of too much -la 
 bour, &c. by the overseer or agent) is not provided against. 
 
 The negro act of South Carolina) passed in 1740, contains 
 the following language as restrictive of the master s power in 
 the exaction of labour from the slave. I copy, in addition to the 
 enacting part of the section, the preamble, since it serves to 
 evidence the abuse which obtained in this particular, at a very 
 early period, when the labour of the slave was probably of much 
 less value than it is at the present time. " Whereas many 
 owners of slaves, and others who have the care, management 
 and overseeing of slaves, do confine them, so closely to hard 
 labour, that they have not sufficient time for natural rest: 
 Be it therefore enacted, 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 labour 
 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." 2 Brevard s Digest, 243. 
 
 In Louisiana, the subjoined act was passed, July 7, 1806, 
 " As for the hours of work and rest, which are to be assigned 
 to slaves in summer and winter, the old usages of the territory 
 shall be adhered to, to wit: The slaves shall be allowed half an 
 hour for breakfast during the whole year; from the first day of 
 May to the first day of November, they shall be allowed two 
 hours for dinner; and from the first day of November to the 
 first clay of May. one hour and a half for dinner: Provided, 
 however, That the owners who will themselves take the trouble 
 
29 
 
 ot causing to be prepared the meals of their slaves, be, and they 
 are hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour per day ? the 
 time fixed for their rest." 1 Martin s Digest, 610-12. 
 
 The remarks which were made, in relation to the laws of 
 Georgia, bear with equal force upon those of South Carolina 
 and Louisiana, above cited. They are wholly inoperative in 
 capable of being executed and must, without doubt, give way 
 to the cupidity of the master, whenever circumstances excite 
 the passion for gain. But to speak of the law of South Carolina 
 ^-suppose it to be religiously observed, is not the measure as to 
 the length of time (for, as regards the kind or degree of labour 
 no regulation exists, and it would be futile to make any) exces 
 sive, and likely to be destructive to bodily energy? In a mat 
 ter of this nature, exact graduation is not easily attainable; yet, 
 judging from such data as I have been able to collect, I think 
 myself authorized in the conclusion that too much is permitted. 
 In the island of Jamaica, besides many holidays which are by 
 law accorded to the slave, ten hours a day is the extent of the 
 time which the slave is compelled ordinarily to work. See 
 2 Edward s West Indies, book 4, chap. 5. Also, Consolidated 
 Slave Jlcl of Jamaica, ibid, book 4; Appendix, section 18. 
 The regulations of penitentiaries, in reference to the employ 
 ment of convicts at hard labour, furnish additional criteria de 
 serving of our attention. And, happily, it is in my power here 
 to adduce the authority of at least three slave-holding states, viz. 
 Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia, in conjunction with that of 
 Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In each of these states this law 
 has been adopted: " Such offenders (convicts) unless prevented 
 by ill health, shall be employed in work every day in the year 
 except Sundays, and such days when they shall be confined in 
 the solitary cells; and the hours of work, in each day, shall be 
 as many, as the season of the year, with an interval of half an 
 hour for breakfast and an hour for dinner, will permit; but not 
 exceeding eight hours in the months of November, December 
 and January; nine hours in the months of February and Octo 
 ber; arid ten hours in the rest of the year. 1 Virg. Rev. Code? 
 o24; Prince s Digest, 382; Laws of Maryland, Nov. Sess. 
 1809, ch. 138, 30; Laws of New Jersey, revised and published 
 
30 
 
 znl&2l,page326; Pur don s Digest of the Laws of Pennsyl 
 vania, page 324 (act ofrfpril 5, 1790.) 
 
 Hence it appears, that according to a statute which was en 
 acted upon the most solemn deliberation by one legislature, and 
 which has been adopted since by four other distinct bodies of 
 the same nature, ten hours make up the longest space out of 
 twenty-four hours, which can be demanded for labour from 
 convicted felons, whose PUNISHMENT was designed to consist 
 chiefly of HARD LABOUR. Yet the slave of South Carolina, under 
 a law professing to extend humanity towards him, may be sub 
 jected to unremitting toil for FIFTEEN HOURS within the same 
 period ! ! 
 
 If we turn to Louisiana, the condition of the slave, in this 
 particular, will be found without melioration. For though the 
 purpose of the act which I have transcribed, is declared to be 
 to ascertain what hours are to be assigned to the slave for work 
 and REST, the only rest which it provides is half an hour at 
 breakfast and two hours for dinner. At what time a third meal 
 is to be taken, whether at sunset or at midnight, is left to the 
 master s pleasure. And judging from our knowledge of the 
 mode in which sugar is made, and cotton raised and pressed, it 
 is not too much to say, that the going down of the sun is by no 
 means the signal of repose to the weary slave.* And let it not 
 be forgotten, that the slave within the short time allotted for 
 rest, is under the necessity of preparing food for his meals!! 
 
 Prop. II. THE MASTER MAY SUPPLY THE SLAVE WITH SUCH 
 
 FOOD AND CLOTHING ONLY, BOTH AS TO QUANTITY AND QUALI 
 TY, AS HE MAY THINK PROPER OR FIND CONVENIENT. 
 
 * An extract from a Louisiana newspaper, dated New Orleans, March 23, 
 1826, will tend in some measure to confirm this remark. The words are these: 
 To judge from the activity reigning in the cotton presses of the suburbs of 
 St. Mary, and the late hours during which their slaves work, the cotton trade was 
 never more brisk." Sugar making is, I believe, generally more laborious than 
 the cultivation of cotton. In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, con 
 tained in " The Western Review," No. 2, (the editor of which is by no means 
 unfavourable to slavery,) the following statement appears: " The work (sugar 
 making) is admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the pro 
 cess of making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAT." 
 
31 
 
 Legislation, having a direct reference to the subject of this 
 proposition, may be quoted from the codes of Louisiana and of 
 North and South Carolina. Still, as the slave is entirely under the 
 control of his master is unprovided with a protector and espe 
 cially as he cannot be a witness, or make complaint in any known 
 mode against his master, the apparent object of these laws may 
 always be defeated. I might, therefore, spare myself any further 
 attention to this proposition. But, for the information of those 
 who have not resided in a slave state, I think fit to copy the 
 authentic testimony of acts of assembly, as to the quantity and 
 quality of food which are directed to be provided for slaves. 
 Thus in Louisiana, " Every owner shall be held to give to his 
 slaves the quantity of provisions hereafter specified, to wit: one 
 barrel of Indian corn, or the equivalent thereof in rice, beans 
 or other grain, and a pint of salt, and to deliver the same to the 
 said slaves in kind every month, and never in money, under a 
 penalty of a fine of ten dollars for every offence." 1 Martin s 
 Digest, 610, act of July 7, 1806. In North Carolina, a much 
 less quantity of the same kind of food is deemed sufficient, as is 
 implied from the following curious section of an act passed in 
 1753, and which is still in force: " In case any slave or slaves, 
 who shall not appear to have been clothed and fed according to 
 the intent and meaning of this act, that is to say, to have been 
 sufficiently clothed, and to have constantly received for the pre 
 ceding year an allowance not less than a quart of corn per day, 
 shall be convicted of stealing any corn, cattle, &c. &c. from any 
 person not the owner of such slave or slaves, such injured per 
 son shall and may maintain an action of trespass against the 
 master, owner or possessor of such slave, &e. and shall recover 
 his or her damages, &c." Hay wood s Manual, 524-5. 
 
 The allowance of clothing in Louisiana, seems to have been 
 graduated by the same standard by which the quantity of food 
 was determined in North Carolina. " The slave who shall not 
 have on the property of their owners a lot of ground to cultivate 
 on their own account, shall be entitled to receive from said 
 owner one linen shirt and pantaloons (line chemise et une culotte 
 tie toile) for the summer, and a linen shirt and woollen great 
 coat and pantaloons for the winter." I Martin s Digest, 610, 
 
32 
 
 The other slave-holding states do not pretend to fix the kind 
 and quantity of food and clothing to be furnished to the slave: 
 but in South Carolina and in Georgia, the cruelty of denying to 
 him a sufficiency of either, is attempted to be guarded against. 
 That full justice may be done to the humanity of the lawgivers 
 of South Carolina, I extract a section of the law which professes 
 to give redress to the injured slave: "In case any person, &c. 
 who shall be owner, or who shall have the care, government or 
 charge of any slave or slaves, shall deny, neglect or refuse to 
 allow such slave or slaves under his or her charge sufficient 
 clothing, covering or food, it shall and may be lawful for any 
 person or persons, on behalf of such slave or slaves, to make 
 complaint to the next neighbouring justice in the parish 
 where such slave or slaves live, or are usually employed; and 
 the said justice shall summons the party against whom such 
 complaint shall be made, and shall inquire of, hear and deter 
 mine the same; and, if the said justice shall find the said coin 
 plaint to be true, or that such person will not exculpate or clear 
 himself from the charge, by his or her own oath, which such 
 person shall be at liberty to do in all cases where positive 
 proof is not given of the offence, such justice shall and may make 
 such orders upon the same, for the relief of such slave or slaves, 
 as he in his discretion shall think fit; and shall and may set and 
 impose a fine or penalty on any person who shall offend in the 
 premises, in any sum not exceeding twenty pounds, current 
 money, for each offence, to be levied by warrant of distress and 
 sale of the offender s goods," &c. &c. 2 Brcvard s Dig. 241; 
 similar in Louisiana, 1 Martin s Dig. 638-40. 
 
 Now, as the slave cannot be heard as a witness, it is not very 
 easy to see how positive proof as to the insufficiency of food can 
 be obtained; and, of course, by the terms of the act, the master 
 or overseer, by his oath, may exculpate himself may answer 
 the general charge by as general a denial a matter which an 
 intrepid conscience, as all experience testifies, will easily com 
 pass. 
 
 The act of Georgia remains to be considered. It will be seen, 
 by recurring to the latter section of the law of this state, upon 
 which I adventured a brief comment while speaking of \\\c first 
 
proposition of this chapter^ that among the constituents of the 
 crime of cruelty by the master to his slave, are enumerated, 
 "the withholding proper food and sustenance," and " not 
 affording proper clothing." For " withholding proper food 
 and sustenance," it has been demonstrated, I trust, that the 
 master is dispunishable. The proof cannot be had. Whether 
 the slave be properly clothed may, however, be ascertained by 
 inspection. But here it is necessary to advert to a remark al 
 ready made, namely, that the crime of cruelty, -according to the 
 legal interpretation of the section, requires the co-existence of 
 all the illegal circumstances specified in the act. It is not 
 enough that "proper clothing is not afforded" proper food must 
 be withheld excessive labour must be exacted unnecessary 
 and excessive whipping must be inflicted; and from all these 
 concomitant causes, an effect is to be produced and proved, 
 " whereby," such is the language of the act, " the health of such 
 slave or slaves may be injured and impaired!!" 
 
 Upon the topics of this proposition, another act of Georgia 
 may be cited, the provisions of which are of a character so novel, 
 that I shall be under the necessity of detaining the reader longer 
 in its discussion than is altogether consistent with the plan of 
 this sketch. The act is a brief one, and I transcribe it entire: 
 " Section 1. From and after the passing of this act, (December 
 12, 1815,) it shall be the duty of the inferior courts of the 
 several counties in this state, on receiving information, on oath, 
 of any injtrm slave or slaves being in a suffering situation, frooi 
 the neglect of the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, to 
 make particular inquiries into the situation of such slave *?r 
 slaves, and render such relief as they in their discretion nn-y 
 think proper. 
 
 " Section 2. The said courts may, and they are hereby author 
 ized, to sue for and recover from the owner or owners of such 
 slave or slaves, the amount that may be appropriated for the re 
 lief of such slave or slaves, in any court having jurisdiction of 
 the same; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwith 
 standing." Prince s Digest, 460. 
 
 By the terms of this act, the relief spoken of is confined to 
 infirm slaves. The purpose of this restriction 1 cannot per- 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 ceive. It it> unnecessary, however, to trouble ourselves with 
 the inquiry, since to the professed objects of its bounty it is 
 scarcely possible a benefit can result. As a preliminary to judi 
 cial investigation, the express directions of the first section re 
 quire information to be given to the inferior judges on oath. 
 I need not repeat, that this must be the oath of a white man* 
 A flagrant case it must be, it will occur to every reflecting mind, 
 which will induce such a person to incur the enmity of a planter, 
 by making a formal complaint, on oath, before the judges of the 
 court, that " an infirm slave is in a suffering condition from 
 the neglect of his owner." But, let it be granted, that such 
 complaint has been preferred by a competent person; it is, it 
 will be observed, but an incipient proceeding, and without the 
 inadmissible evidence of the slave himself, how can the other 
 requirements of the act be complied with? What kind of re 
 plies can be expected to the "particular inquiries" which the 
 judges are directed to make ? The charge is a grave one- it 
 strikes at the character of the master; the evidence to support it 
 should be proportionately cogent it should be incontrovertible. 
 
 Improbable as I think I have shown the supposition to be, let 
 it be further granted, that the complaint has been established by 
 evidence satisfactory to the judges, and that, in conformity with 
 the directions of the act, they have proceeded " to render such 
 relief as they, in their discretion, have thought proper." 
 
 If the reader be in any degree conversant with judicial pro 
 ceedings, he will be apt to conclude that this latter concession 
 is an abandonment of the argument. And, truly, had the law 
 under examination been founded on practical principles had it 
 been framed, as all laws ought to be, to answer the behests of 
 justice, the concession would be open to this objection. Yet, 
 unwilling as we may be to believe the reproach, it is impossible 
 to shut out the conviction, that the makers of the act did not de 
 sign it to be efficient ; otherwise, the second section would not 
 have been appended. This section gives to the act, as has been 
 before observed, a character altogether novel in jurisprudence. 
 By \\\vjirst section, it will be recollected, the duty is imposed 
 on the judges of the inferior courts, after having made " parti 
 cular inquiries into the situation of the suffering slave," loren- 
 
35 
 
 such relief as they should think Jit. One would naturally 
 infer, that after a judicial tribunal had solemnly adjudged " re 
 lief to be necessary for AN INFIRM slave in a SUFFERING con 
 dition from the NEGLECT of his owner" that the hand of jus 
 tice would not be tardy to enforce the decision. Very different, 
 however, were the sentiments of the humane legislature of 
 Georgia. No relief is administered. The duty of the judges is 
 at an end, by the determination that relief is necessary! They 
 cannot order an execution upon their judgment. The harvest 
 should have been ready for the sickle but the seed has not been 
 sown the ground is not even prepared to receive it. The 
 judges are authorized (not commanded) to assume the unheard- 
 of character for judges to become SUITORS in another court 
 " to sue for," says the second section, "and recover from the 
 owner or owners of such slave or slaves, the amount that may 
 be appropriated for the relief of such slave. " No special pro 
 vision is made for the payment of costs, in case these plaintiff 
 judges should, from defect of evidence, or from any other cause, 
 be unable to convince the ulterior court and jury that relief 
 should be afforded. It results, of course, that they must defray 
 them from their private resources, like all other unsuccessful 
 parties to an action. The delay and uncertainty of the law, 
 even in its ordinary mode of administration, where every rea 
 sonable facility for investigation is accorded, are proverbial; is 
 it to be expected, then, with the obstacles to the execution of 
 this act which have been pointed out the exclusion of slave 
 testimony when no other testimony would be likely to disclose 
 the necessary facts the preferment of the complaint before one 
 set of judges whose decision, at most, leads to no other result 
 than that these judges may become suitors in the cause before 
 another distinct judicial tribunal, with the certain inconvenience 
 of the loss of time, and the almost certain loss of money, that 
 a suit should ever be terminated or that it should be terminat 
 ed in favour of the slave!! Legislation such as this, is worse 
 than mockery. 
 
 Prop. III. THE MASTER MAY, AT HIS DISCRETION, INFLICT 
 
 ANY SPECIES OF PUNISHMENT UPON THE PERSON OF HIS SLAVE 
 
36 
 
 If the power of the master, to the extent here implied, were 
 sanctioned by express law, we should have no claim to the cha 
 racter of a civilized people. The very being of the slave would 
 be in the hands of the master. Such is not the case; on the 
 contrary, from the laws which I shall cite, it will be fully evi 
 dent that so far as regards the pages of the statute book, the 
 life at least of the slave, is safe from the authorized violence of 
 the master. The evil is not that laws are wanting, but that they 
 cannot be enforced not that they sanction crime, but that they 
 do not punish it. And this arises chiefly, if not solely, from 
 the cause which has been more than once mentioned the ex 
 clusion of the testimony, on the trial of a white person, of all 
 those who are not white. 
 
 There was a time in many, if not in all the slave-holding 
 districts of our country, when the murder of a slave was followed 
 by a pecuniary fine only. In one state, a change of the law in 
 this respect has been very recent. At the present date, J am 
 happy to say, the wilful, malicious and deliberate murder of a 
 slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is declared to be punishable 
 with death in every state. James 9 Digest, 392 (act of Decem 
 ber 20, 1821); 1 Rev. Code Va. 616; Hay wood 7 s Manual, 
 (N. C.) 530 (act o/1798); Constitution of Georgia, art. 4, 
 12, and act of Assembly (1817); Prince s Digest, 348 & 456; 
 Mississippi Rev. Code, 297; Missouri Constitution, art. 3, 
 28, and act of July 4, 1825; 1 Missouri Laws, 282; Laws 
 of Tennessee, act of Oct. 23, 1799, &c. &c. 
 
 A slight difference in the laws of the several states obtains on 
 this point, which is not unworthy of being noted. In Virginia,* 
 the penal code contains no definition of murder, as such, but 
 impliedly adopting the common law definition, prescribes the 
 punishment to be inflicted for this crime. Of consequence, 
 whatever be the complexion of the person murdered, or whether 
 he be bond or free, the law as to the guilt of the offender is the 
 same. Act of March 6, 1819; 1 Rev. Code, 616. Similar in 
 
 * The distinction, which originated in Pennsylvania, as to degrees of guilt in 
 the crime of murder, has been recognised in Virginia. The name of the crime, 
 however, is not changed in either of these states it is in the punishment only, 
 that the distinction is important. 
 
37 
 
 Missouri, Constitution, art. 3, 28; and I Missouri Laws, 
 
 282, 3. / 
 
 The conflicting influences of humanity and prejudice are 
 strangely contrasted in the law of North Carolina on this sub 
 ject Section 3, of the act passed in 1 798, runs thus: " Whereas 
 by another act of assembly, passed in the year 1774, the killing 
 of a slave, however wanton, cruel and deliberate, is only pun- 
 ishable in the first instance by imprisonment and paying the value 
 thereof to the owner, which distinction of criminality between 
 the murder of a white person and one who is equally a human 
 creature, but merely of a different complexion, is DISGRACE 
 FUL TO HUMANITY, AND DEGRADING IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE 
 TO THE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OP A FREE, CHRISTIAN AND EN 
 LIGHTENED COUNTRY, Be it enacted, &c. That if any person 
 shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a 
 slave, such offender shall, upon the first conviction thereof, be 
 adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the same punishment 
 as if he had killed a free man : Provided always, this act shall 
 not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of 
 any act of assembly of this state, or to any slave in the act 
 of resistance* to his lawful owner or master, OR TO ANY SLAVE 
 DYING UNDER MODERATE CORRECTION." Haywood s Manual, 
 530; and see Laws of Tennessee, act of Oct. 23, 1799, with a 
 like proviso. 
 
 The language of the constitution of Georgia, art. 4, 12, is 
 so nearly similar, that I transcribe it in this place, in order that 
 both may be considered together. " Any person who shall ma 
 liciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such 
 punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been 
 committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, ex 
 cept in case of insurrection of such slave, and unless SUCH DEATH 
 
 SHOULD HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT IN GIVING SUCH SLAVE MODERATE 
 
 CORRECTION." Prince s Digest, 559. 
 
 The glaring inconsistency of the declaration in the preamble 
 to the act of North Carolina, that " a distinction of criminality 
 
 * In reference to this clause in the proviso, it has been judicially deter 
 mined, that it is justifiable, to kill a slave, resisting or offering to resist his mas 
 ter, by force. 2 Haywootfs Reports, 54. 
 
38 
 
 between the murder of a white person and one who is equally 
 a human creature, but merely of a different complexion, is dis 
 graceful to humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to 
 the laws and principles of a free, Christian and enlightened coun 
 try," and the impunity which is granted, in the same section, 
 to the murderer of an outlawed slave, needs but little explana 
 tion or comment. To set the matter, however, in its proper 
 light, it may be added, that a proclamation of outlawry* against 
 a slave is authorized, whenever he runs away from his master, 
 conceals himself in some obscure retreat, and, to sustain life, 
 kills a hog) or some animal of the cattle kind! ! See Hay wood 9 s 
 Manual, 521; act of 1741, ch. 24, 45. 
 
 But to turn to another part of the proviso, attached to this 
 act. To style the " correction" of a slave which causes DEATH, 
 "moderate," is a solecism too monstrous for sober legislation. 
 And yet such has been the law of two enlightened states for 
 more than a fourth of a century; and the same provision, with 
 an unimportant increment, has been incorporated into the con 
 stitution of a third state for an equal space of time ! ! Had a 
 statement of this nature appeared in the pages of a foreign 
 journal, who is there among us that would not have indignantly 
 repelled the charge as an opprobrious falsehood? 
 
 There is another point of view in which this exception, as to 
 death produced by the moderate correction of the slave, claims 
 an observation. I mean, in respect to the protection which it 
 throws over the murderer, when on his trial for killing a slave. 
 Every one who has been the least attentive to trials for capital 
 offences, or who knows the human heart, is well aware that the 
 compassion of a jury is ever ready to lay hold of a pretext to 
 save themselves from the painful duty of convicting a fellow 
 being of a crime, the punishment of which is death. Strong 
 evidence will not, therefore, be required by them to induce the. 
 
 * The outlawry of a slave is not, I believe, an unusual occurrence. Very 
 recently, a particular account was given of the killing of a black man, not 
 charged with any offence, by a person in pursuit of an outlawed slave, owing, 
 as it was stated, to the person killed not answering to a call made to him by 
 the pursuers. Whether the call was heard or not, of course could not be ascer 
 tained, nor did it appear to have excited any inquiry. 
 
39 
 
 belief thai the murderer s design was the correction of the slave 
 that possibly (and possibilities are usually urged as sufficient 
 justification for acquittals, where life is in jeopardy) the measure 
 bestowed was moderate, and of course the death must have been 
 accidental. 
 
 In South Carolina, (act of 1740,) the legislature having by 
 some means made the discovery, as they set forth in the law, 
 that " cruelty is not only highly unbecoming those who profess 
 themselves Christians, but is odious in the eyes of all men who 
 have any sense of virtue or humanity to restrain and prevent 
 barbarity being exercised towards slaves, 9 enacted, "That if any 
 person whosoever, shall wilfully murder his own slave, or the 
 slaves of any other person, every such person (i. e. the offender) 
 shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay the sum of seven 
 hundred pounds, current money, and shall be rendered for ever 
 incapable of holding, exercising, &c. any office, &c. and in case 
 any such person shall not be able to pay the penalty and for 
 feiture hereby inflicted and imposed, every such person shall be 
 sent to any of the frontier garrisons of the province, or commit 
 ted to the work-house in Charleston for the space of seven years, 
 &c. &c. at hard labour." 2 Brev. Dig. 241. This pecuniary 
 mulct was the only restraint upon the wilful murder of a slave 
 in this state, from the year 1740 to the year 1821, a period of 
 more than eighty years. But wilful murder, in the sense in 
 which the epithet wilful is here used, it is not very likely 
 would be often* perpetrated by the master. The species of 
 murder, the cruelty of which can scarcely be exaggerated by 
 
 * Perhaps in this supposition I am mistaken. I find in the case of " The. 
 State vs. M Oee, 1 JBay s Reports, 164, it is said incidentally by Messrs. Pinck- 
 ney and Ford, counsel for the state, " that the frequency of the offence (wilful 
 murder of a slave) was owing to the nature, of the punishment," &c. &c. Rela 
 tively, however, I have no doubt the latter species of this crime, i. e. murder 
 by undue, correction, &c. must have been much more common. A reflection 
 naturally suggests itself from the remark of Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, 
 which I have here transferred. This remark was made in 1791, when the 
 above trial took place. It was made in a public place a court-house and 
 by men of great personal respectability. There can be, therefore, no question 
 as to its verity, and as little of its notoriely,- nevertheless, thirty years elapsed 
 before a change of the law was effected! ! 
 
40 
 
 any description, and which there is a strong probability, would 
 be not unfrequently chargeable upon the master or his overseer, 
 is delineated in another section of the same act, and guarded 
 against, how adequately, the reader will judge for himself, from 
 the following quotation : " If any person shall, on a sudden heat 
 or passion, or by undue correction, kill his own slave, or the 
 slave of any other person, he shall forfeit the sum of three hun 
 dred and fifty pounds, current money." Ibid. 241. 
 
 The first named of these sections, I have already mentioned, 
 has been repealed by an act of 1821, which punishes the wilful, 
 malicious and deliberate murder of a slave, by death without 
 benefit of clergy. The latter section, so far as relates to the 
 killing of a slave on a sudden heat or passion, has been supplied 
 by an enactment in the same year, which DIMINISHES the pecu 
 niary penalty to five hundred dollars, but authorizes an impri 
 sonment not exceeding six months. James 9 Digest, 392. 
 
 Where the life of the slave is thus feebly protected, his limbs, 
 as might be expected, share no better fate. I quote again from 
 the act of 1740, of South Carolina. " In case any person shall 
 wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye,* castrate, or cruelly 
 scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or 
 shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whip 
 ping or beating with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch or small 
 stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning 
 such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, for 
 feit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money." 2 Bre- 
 vard s Digest, 241. This section has, as far as I have been able 
 to learn, been suffered to disgrace the statute book from the year 
 1740 to the present hour. Amidst all the mutations which 
 Christianity has effected within the last century, she has not 
 been able to conquer the spirit which dictated this abominable 
 law. To say nothing of the trifling penalty for mutilation, 
 what idea of humanity must a people entertain, who, by direct 
 legislation sanction the beating, without limit, of a fellow crea- 
 
 * How different was the Mosaic law; " If a man smite the, eye of his servant, 
 or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eytfs sake" 
 " And if he smite out his man servant s tooth, or his maid servant s tooth, he 
 shall let him go free for his tooth s sake." Exodus, chap. 2\, vmes 26, 27. 
 
41 
 
 ture, with ^Horsewhip or cowskin and the infliction of any tor 
 ture which the ingenuity and malignity of man may invent, in 
 the application of irons to the human body, and the perpetual in 
 carceration, if the master so will, of the unfortunate slave, in a 
 " dungeon keep, 77 however loathsome. Such, nevertheless, is 
 the just interpretation of this law a law too, which at the same 
 time denominates these very acts WHICH IT AUTHORIZES, cruel 
 punishments. 
 
 Louisiana has borrowed the last section of the South Carolina 
 law, with the exception of what respects mutilation, and making 
 the penalty not more than five hundred dollars, nor less than 
 two hundred. See 1 Martin s Digest, 654. Whatever remarks, 
 therefore, were made upon that law, will apply equally to this. 
 Her new Civil Code effects no reformation of the old law, but 
 is content with the enunciation of a general principle, which is 
 regarded, no doubt, as the quintessence of humanity. " The 
 slave is entirely subject to the will of his master, who may cor 
 rect and chastise him, though not with unusual rigour, nor so 
 as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of 
 loss of life, or to cause his death." Civil Code of Louisiana, 
 art. 173. How far the power of the master is limited by the 
 expression unusual* rigour, may be easily inferred, when it is 
 recollected that the law of South Carolina last noticed, had been 
 in full force in Louisiana for many years before, and was so at 
 the time when the Civil Code was adopted. 
 
 The constitution of Mississippi bestows upon the general as 
 sembly power to make laws to oblige the owners of slaves to 
 
 * So lately as 1819, the legislature of Louisiana recognized the practice of 
 putting iron chains and collars upon slaves, to prevent them from running 
 away. The act reads thus: " If any person or persons, &c. shall cut or break 
 any iron chain or collar, which any master of slaves should have used in order 
 to prevent the running away or escape of any such slave or slaves, such per 
 son or persons so offending shall, on conviction, &c. be fined not less than two 
 hundred dollars, nor exceeding one thousand dollars; and suffer imprisonment 
 for a term not exceeding two years, nor less than six months." Ad of Assem 
 bly, of March 6, 1819 pamphlet, page 64. It is worthy of special commemo 
 ration, that the legislature of the same state, by the law given above in the 
 text, from 1 Martin s Digest, 654, imposes a much less penalty for the infliction 
 of " cruel punishments," of the most atrocious description, upon the slave. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 treat them with humanity to abstain from all injuries to them 
 extending to life or limb; and, in case of their neglect or refusal 
 to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave 
 or slaves sold for the benefit of the owner or owners. Const. 
 Mississippi, Title Slaves, sect. 1 ; Rev. Code, 554. In the ex 
 ercise of the power thus granted, in the first and second clauses, 
 viz. " to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, 
 and to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or 
 limb," the general assembly have passed this act: "No cruel or 
 unusual punishment shall be inflicted on any slave within this 
 state. And any master or other person entitled to the service 
 of any slave, who shall inflict such cruel or unusual punishment, 
 or shall authorize or permit the same to be inflicted, shall, on 
 conviction, &c. be fined according to the magnitude of the 
 offence, at the discretion of the court, in any sum not exceeding 
 five hundred dollars," &c. Rev. Code, 379* (act of June 18th, 
 1822.) Without the testimony of the slave, I again remark, a 
 law of this nature may be regarded as nugatory. But, abstract 
 edly considered, what protection does it hold forth. " Cruel" 
 and "unusual," connected as they are by the disjunctive "or," 
 mean precisely the same thing, and will be so construed by the 
 court. And what horrible barbarities may be excused under 
 the name of usual punishments, the reader will be enabled to 
 judge by recurring to the laws of South Carolina and Louisiana, 
 contained on the preceding pages. 
 
 But what reason can be alleged for not putting in requisition 
 at once, the important power, " to have slaves sold from their 
 owners who neglect or refuse to comply with the directions of 
 laws designed to secure humane treatment to such slaves/ This 
 point will be the subject of separate examination hereafter, and 
 I forbear therefore enlarging upon it now. 
 
 The constitution of Missouri has gone beyond that of Missis 
 sippi, in relation to the protection of slaves from the inhumanity 
 of their masters ; for it not only empowers the legislature " to 
 oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, and to 
 
 * Alabama has a similar law, except as to the penalty, which is but one hun 
 dred dollars. Tbulmin s Digest, 631. 
 
43 
 
 abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb," 
 ftrt. 3, 26, last clause (1 Missouri Laws, 48) but it is made 
 its DUTY to pass suck laws as may be necessary for this pur 
 pose. If this injunction be regarded in its proper light, it will 
 be incumbent on the legislature to remove the restriction which 
 has been imposed on the reception of the testimony of all who 
 are not whites. As yet, no law has been enacted on the autho 
 rity of the article in the constitution; on the contrary, there is 
 an act which confers upon the master a new mode of inflicting 
 punishment on the slave, which may be perverted to subserve 
 purposes most cruel. " If any slave resist his or her master, 
 mistress, overseer or employer, or refuse to obey his or her 
 lawful commands, it shall be lawful for such master, &c. to com 
 mit such slave to the common gaol of the county, there to re 
 main at the pleasure of the master, &c. ; and the sheriff shall 
 receive such slave, and keep him, &c. in confinement, at the 
 expense of the person committing him or her." 1 Missouri 
 Laws, 309. While for the obvious reason, that the master, if 
 cruel and vindictive, can gratify his disposition in a manner 
 less expensive, and much less troublesome to him in its execu 
 tion, and more severe towards his victim, I do not think it pro 
 bable this power will be abused; yet, viewing man as he is, no 
 law ought to justify and assist in the imposition of a punishment 
 of this nature, to be prosecuted to any extent which a wicked 
 heart may desire. 
 
 Upon a fair review of what has been written on the subject 
 of this proposition, the result is found to be That the master s 
 power to inflict corporal punishment to any extent, short of life 
 and limb, is fully sanctioned by law, in all the slave-holding 
 states that the master, in at least two states, is expressly pro 
 tected in using the horsewhip and cowskin, as instruments for 
 beating his slave that he may, with entire impunity, in the 
 same states, load his slave with irons, or subject him to perpetual 
 imprisonment whenever he may so choose that for cruelly 
 scalding, wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out an eye, 
 and for any other dismemberment, improved, a fine of one hun 
 dred pounds currency only is incurred in South Carolina that 
 though in all the states the wilful, deliberate and malicious mur- 
 
44 
 
 der of the slave is now directed to be punished with death, yet> 
 as in the case of a white offender, none except whites can give 
 evidence, a conviction can seldom, if ever, take place, 
 
 Prop. IV. ALL THE POWER OF THE MASTER OVER THE SLAVE 
 
 MAY BE EXERCISED, NOT BY HIMSELF ONLY IN PERSON, BUT BY 
 ANY ONE WHOM HE MAY DEPUTE AS HIS AGENT. 
 
 Louisiana is the only state in which an act of assembly has 
 been passed on this topic. The language of the act may be 
 cited, as an appalling definition of slavery itself. " The condi 
 tion of a slave being merely a passive orie, his subordination to 
 his master, and to all who represent him, is not susceptible of 
 any modification or restriction, (except in what can incite the 
 slave to the commission of crime,) in such manner, that he owes 
 to his master and to all his family a respect without bounds and 
 an absolute obedience, and he is consequently to execute all the 
 orders which he receives from him, his said master, or from 
 them." 1 Martin s Digest, 616. 
 
 In the other slave-holding states, the subjoined extract from 
 Mr. Stephen s delineation of slavery in the West Indies, will, 
 it is believed, accurately express the law and the practice.* 
 
 * A case is reported among the decisions in the supreme court of appeals in 
 Virginia, which, while it confirms the text, proves how wantonly this power 
 may be, and is abused. The statement prefixed to the opinion of the court is 
 in these words: " May brought an action of trespass vi et armis, in the Peters 
 burg district court, against the appellants, (Broivn &? Boisseau,} for breaking 
 and entering his close, and beating several of his slaves, in the declaration named, 
 so that he was deprived of their services for a long time, and throwing down his 
 enclosures round his field, whereby his wheat, then and there growing, was 
 trodden down and injured by a great number of cattle and horses, &c. &c. A 
 bill of exceptions states, that on the trial the defendants offered, in mitigation 
 of damages, the testimony of a witness, tending to prove that the plaintiff had 
 given a general permission to Brown, one of the defendants, to VISIT his negro quar 
 ters, and to chastise any of his slaves who might be found acting improperly." This 
 evidence was rejected, not that it was in itself improper, but on technical objec 
 tions, one of which was, that it was offered, and according to the state of the 
 pleadings, if received, would go to the defence of both Brown and Soisseau, 
 whereas THE PERMISSION was granted to BROWN only,- and the beating, as had 
 been previously shown, had been inflicted solely by BOISSEATJ "to whom," 
 continues the report, " it was admitted no such permission had been given." 
 See 1 Munford s Reports, 288, Broum & Boisseau vs. May. What more flagrant 
 
45 
 
 " The slave is liable to be coerced or punished by the whip, and 
 to be tormented by every species of personal ill-treatment, sub 
 ject only to the exceptions already mentioned, (L e. the depri 
 vation of life or limb,) by the attorney, manager, overseer, 
 driver, and every other person to whose government or control 
 the owner may choose to subject him, as fully as by the owner 
 himself. Nor is any special mandate or express general power 
 necessary for this purpose; it is enough that the inflictor of the 
 violence is set over the slave for the moment, by the owner, 
 or by any of his delegates or sub-delegates, of whatever rank 
 or character. 79 Stephen s Slavery, page 46. 
 
 This power of deputation by the master is one of the degrad 
 ing and distinguishing features of negro slavery. It was not 
 permitted by the law of villanage. " The villein might have 
 an action against any man but his lord for beating him, except 
 for just cause; and it was no legal defence in such action, to 
 plead that it was done by the command of the lord. " 9 Coke s 
 Reports, 76 1/?. and see Stephen s supra. 
 
 The most common delegate of the master is known by the 
 appellation of " overseer." A description of this class of beings, 
 is furnished by Mr. Wirt, in his life of Patrick Henry, page 
 34. Coming from this source, there is no reason to suspect the 
 character to be surcharged with cruelty, and the following ex 
 tract is in the words of that author: " Last and lowest, (i. e. of 
 the different classes of society in Virginia,) zfecuhtm of beings 
 called overseers the most abject, degraded, unprincipled 
 race always cap in hand to the dons who employed them, and 
 furnishing materials for the exercise of their pride, insolence, 
 and spirit of domination." 
 
 Prop. V. SLAVES HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY IN 
 
 THINGS REAL OR PERSONAL, AND, WHATEVER PROPERTY THEY 
 MAY ACQUIRE, BELONGS, IN POINT OF LAW, TO THEIR MASTERS. 
 
 abuse of the master s power of delegation could be practised than this to 
 grant a. general permission to one not in the function of an overseer, or general 
 deputy, to superintend the employment, &c. of the slaves, (for this character 
 is plainly denied to Brown, inasmuch as he is charged with having broken the 
 close of May, i. e. entered unlawfully, without his consent, upon his premises,) 
 to visit his negro quarters, and to chastise any of his slaves who might be found 
 acting improperly! ! ! 
 
46 
 
 Of negro slavery only, can this harsh doctrine be affirmed. 
 Among the Romans, the Grecians and the ancient Germans, 
 slaves were permitted to acquire and enjoy property of consi 
 derable value, as their own. "The Polish slaves, even prior 
 to any recent alleviations of their lot, were not only allowed to 
 hold property but were endowed with it by their lords." 
 Stephen s Slavery, fyc. 59, citing WraxalVs Memoirs, 2 voL 
 letter 21. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the money 
 and effects which a slave acquires by his labour at times set 
 apart for his own use, or, by other honest means, are legally 
 his own and cannot be seized by his master. Ibid 60. And 
 even in the British West India Islands, where the condition of 
 slavery on the whole, is not perhaps, less severe than it is in 
 the slave-holding sections of the United States, and, where in 
 truth, the unwritten law is as above stated in this proposition, 
 yet, the feelings of the community there forbid its enforcement 
 by the master. Since, however, to deprive the slave of any 
 little articles of property which he might obtain, by the exer 
 cise of his industry and skill, in the few moments of leisure 
 occasionally indulged to him, has been thought of sufficient im 
 portance to call for solemn acts of the general assemblies in our 
 slave-holding states, there seems but little reason to believe, 
 that humanity has opposed their execution and established a 
 better practice there. I insert various acts of assembly, which 
 will evidence, in what light this subject is viewed in the states, 
 so often alluded to. Thus in South Carolina: " It shall not be 
 lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c. for any goods, &c. 
 without a license from the owner, &c. nor shall any slave be 
 permitted to keep any boat, periauger* or canoe, or raise and 
 
 * Periaugua as this word should be spelled, is thus defined, in the Ency 
 clopaedia, (first American edition, published by Mr. Dobson ;) " a sort of 
 large canoe made use of in the Leeward Islands, South America and the Gulf 
 of Mexico. It is composed of the trunks of two trees hollowed and united 
 together; and thus differs from the canoe which is formed of one tree." In 
 this country, the distinction here mentioned, between a canoe and periaugua, 
 is not always observed In " a series of letters from Timothy Flint, principal 
 of the Seminary of Rapide, Louisiana, to the Rev. James Flint, of Salem, 
 Mass. I find the periaugua, described, as " a vessel of from two to four tons 
 burthen, hollowed, sometimes from one prodigious tree, or from the trunks of 
 two trees united, and a plank rim fitted to the upper part." 
 
47 
 
 breed, for the benefit of such slave, any horses, mares, cattle, 
 sheep or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, &c. and 
 all the boats, periaugers or canoes, horses, mares, cattle, sheep, 
 or hogs. And it shall be lawful for any person whatsoever, to 
 seize and take away from any slave, all such goods, &c. boats, 
 &c. &c. and to deliver the same into the hands of any justice of 
 the peace, nearest to the place, where the seizure shall be made, 
 and such justice shall take the oath of the person making such 
 seizure, concerning the manner thereof; and if the said justice 
 shall be satisfied that such seizure has been made according to 
 law, he shall pronounce and declare the goods so seized, to be 
 forfeited, and order the same to be sold at public outcry, one half 
 of the monies arising from such sale to go to the state, and the 
 other half to him or them that sue for the same. " James Digest, 
 385-6. Jlct of 1740. 
 
 The act of the legislature of Georgia, is in nearly the same 
 words. Prince s Digest, 453. And, lest perchance, the bene 
 volence of the master, should sometimes permit the slave to 
 hire himself, to another for his own benefit, Georgia has im 
 posed a penalty of thirty dollars "for every weekly offence, 
 on the part of the master, unless the labour be done on his own 
 premises." Prince s Dig. 457. So, in Kentucky, with a 
 slight modification, 2 Lift. 4* Swi. Digest, 1159-60. See 
 Mississippi Rev. Code, 375, and Laws of Tennessee, Oct. 23, 
 1813, chap. 135. 
 
 And in Virginia, if the master shall permit his slave to hire 
 himself out, it is made lawful for any person and the duty of 
 the Sheriff, &c. to apprehend such slave, &c. and the master 
 shall be fined not less than ten dollars, nor more than twenty, 
 &c. 1 Rev. Code, 374-5, Similar, 2 Missouri Laws, 743, and 
 see Haywood s Manual, 534. 
 
 As early as the year 1779, North Carolina interposed as fol 
 lows: " Ml horses, cattle, hogs or sheep, that one month 
 after the passing of this act, shall belong to any slave jr be 
 of any slave s mark, in this state, shall be seized and sold 
 by the County Wardens, and by them applied, the one-half 
 to the support of the poor of the county, and the other half 
 to the informer." Haywood s Manual, 526. See Missis- 
 
48 
 
 sippi Rev. Code, 378, and Kilty s Laws of Maryland, act 
 of 1723, chap. 15, 6. 
 
 In Maryland, by act of JLpril sessions, 1787, chap. 33, 
 " any person who shall permit and authorize any slave belong^ 
 ing to him or herself, &c. to go at large or hire himself or her 
 self, within this state, shall incur the penalty of five pounds, 
 (thirteen and one-third dollars,) current money per month, ex 
 cept ten days at harvest This penalty was increased to twenty 
 dollars, excepting however, an additional ten days in harvest. 
 Act of December sessions, 1817, chap. 104, 1. By both 
 acts, a slave being a pilot, is not included within the prohi 
 bition. 
 
 In Mississippi a slave is forbidden to cultivate cotton for his 
 own use, and, should the master permit him to do so, he incurs 
 a fine of fifty dollars. Miss. Rev. Code, 379. 
 
 And, " if any master, &c. of a slave license such slave to go 
 at large and trade as a freeman, he shall forfeit the sum of fifty 
 dollars for each and every offence. Mississippi Rev. Code, 
 374, and see 2 Missouri Laws, 743. Also, Kilty 7 s Laws of 
 Maryland, act of <April, 1787, chap. 33. An equal fine is 
 imposed upon a master, convicted of permitting his slave to 
 keep " stock of any description:" act of January 29, 1825, 
 pamph. laws of Mississippi of 1825. 
 
 The civil code of Louisiana coincides with the text in the fol 
 lowing manner : " all that a slave possesses belongs to his 
 master he possesses nothing of his own, except his peculium, 
 that is to say, the sum of money or moveable estate, which his 
 master chooses he should possess." <ftrt. 175, and see, 1 
 Martin s Digest, 616. " Slaves are incapable of inheriting or 
 transmitting property." Civil Code, art. 945. " Slaves cannot 
 dispose of or receive by donation inter vivos or mortis causa, un 
 less they have been previously and expressly enfranchised con 
 formably to law, or unless they are expressly enfranchised by the 
 act, by which the donation is made to them." *ftrt. 1462. "The 
 earnings of slaves and the price of their service, belong to their 
 owners, who have their action to recover the amount from those 
 who have employed them." Louisiana Code of Practice^ 
 art. 103. 
 
49 
 
 *The decisions of the courts confirm the doctrine* of these 
 acts of assembly; as in South Carolina, where it was held, 
 "That slaves cannot take property by descent or purchase, 4 
 Dessatissure s Chancery Reports, 266, By num. vs. Bostwick. 
 And, in North Carolina, " Slaves cannot take by sale, or 
 devise, or descent. And, a devise of land, to be rented out 
 for the maintenance of a slave, was adjudged to be void. 1 
 Cameron s and Norwood s Reports, 353 same decision, 1 
 Taylor s Reports, 209. Also, in Maryland, a gift, bequest, 
 or devise made to a slave, by any one not his owner, would be 
 void. See Dulany s opinion, 1 Maryland Reports, 561. 
 Though in this last state, such a devise of real or personal 
 estate, made by the owner of the slave, has been held to entitle 
 
 * There is an isolated case, of pretty early date, (determined in the Su 
 preme Court of South Carolina. See 1 Bay s Reports, 260-3. The Guardian 
 of Sally, a negro vs. Scatty,} which is too interesting- in several points of 
 view to be passed by unnoticed. It is in opposition to the spirit of the laws, 
 and to other later decisions of the courts, on which account, if no other rea 
 son could be assigned, it would be necessary to insert it. An outline of the 
 facts of the case, is thus given by the reporter. " This was a special action, 
 in nature of ravishment of ward, to establish the freedom of a negro girl, 
 according to the form prescribed by the act of the legislature for that pur 
 pose. The case was this: a negro wench slave, the property of the defen 
 dant, by working out in town, with permission of her master, had by her in 
 dustry, acquired a considerable sum of money, over and above what she 
 had stipulated to pay for her monthly wages to her master, and having an 
 affection for a negro girl, Sally, she purchased her with this mofiey which 
 she had been for years accumulating, and gave her her freedom. For a con 
 siderable time after the purchase was made, the defendant never claimed any 
 property in the negro girl, never paid taxes for her, but on the contrary, 
 acknowledged he had no property in her. Some short time, however, before 
 the commencement of the present action, when called upon to deliver up the 
 girl, as free, he refused ; in consequence of which, this action was brought. 
 The court charged the jury in favour of the plaintiff. Chief Justice Rutledge, 
 saying, in conclusion, If the wench chose to appropriate the savings of her 
 extra labour to the purchase of this girl, in order, afterwards to set her free, 
 would a jury of the country say No ! ! He trusted not. They were too hu 
 mane and upright, he hoped to do such manifest violence to so singular and 
 extraordinary an act of benevolence. The jury, without retiring from the 
 box, returned a verdict for the plaintiff s ward, and she was set at liberty," 
 Which of these was neighbour to the oppressed negro girl ? 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 the slave to freedom, as the implied intention of the owner; 
 Hall vs. Mullin, 5 Harris and Johnson s Reports, 1 90. 
 
 Prop. VI. THE SLAVE BEING " A PERSONAL CHATTEL/ is 
 
 AT ALL TIMES, LIABLE TO BE SOLD ABSOLUTELY, OR MORTGAG 
 ED OR LEASED, AT THE WILL OF HIS MASTER. 
 
 After what has been said, with respect to the master s power 
 over his slave, it may seem to be of but little consequence to 
 the slave, whether he remain for life, subject to one and the 
 same master, or be transferred successively to many others, 
 As far as the master s treatment towards him is concerned, this 
 conclusion may be taken as generally correct. But it must not 
 be forgotten that the slave is a human being, and although his 
 degraded condition may have blunted, or perhaps destroyed the 
 nicer sensibilities of our nature, yet, is he susceptible of many 
 of the feelings which attach those of the same species to each 
 other, and even to insensate objects. *fls man, he must be 
 alive to the ties of consanguinity and affinity. *fts man, he 
 must know what friendship is. *fts man, it is scarcely possible 
 he should not feel an attachment even to place. And as man, 
 the indulgence of these feelings, cannot fail to contribute large 
 ly to his happiness. To be torn from such endearments, with 
 out the hope of a restoration, and yet live, must inflict a pang, 
 agonizing beyond description. The terror which his master s 
 presence inspires, renders those of his own condition more 
 dear. Nevertheless, in the slave-holding states, except in 
 Louisiana, no law exists to prevent the violent separation of 
 parents from their children, or even from each other.* In most 
 
 * One of the abolition acts of Pennsylvania, (act of 29th March, 1788), 
 contains this provision: " If any owner or possessor of any negro or mulatto 
 slave or slaves, or servant or servants, for a term of years, shall, from and 
 after the first day of June next, separate or remove, or cause to be separated 
 or removed, a husband from his wife, a wife from her husband, a child from 
 his or her parent, or a parent from a child, of any or either of the descrip 
 tions aforesaid, to a greater distance than ten miles, with the design and in 
 tention of changing the habitation or place of abode of such husband or wife, 
 parent or child, unless such child shall be above the age of four years, or 
 unless the consent of such slave, &c. shall have been obtained and J:estified{as 
 herein before described, (5. e. by acknowledgment before a magistrate, &c.) 
 
51 
 
 other countries in which slavery is tolerated, the slave is em 
 ployed in the cultivation of the soil, and cannot, by sale, be 
 detached from it. Such is the case, in the Spanish, in the Por 
 tuguese, and even in the French colonies. The Code Noir, 
 art. 47, (I quote from Stephen, not having the code before me,) 
 prohibits the selling of the husband without the wife, the pa 
 rents without the children, or vice versa. In voluntary sales, 
 made contrary to this regulation, the wife or husband, children 
 or parent, though expressly retained by the seller, pass by the 
 same conveyance to the purchaser, and may be claimed by him 
 without any additional price.* See Stephen s Slavery , &c. 69, 
 If the humanity of the French has adopted this law, why 
 should not the citizens of our republics imitate so good an exam 
 ple? But it is foreign to my plan, to dwell longer on this topic, 
 I pass to a kindred proposition, the source of, perhaps, greater 
 evil. 
 
 Prop. VII. THE SLAVE is AT ALL TIMES LIABLE TO BE SOLD, 
 
 BY PROCESS OP LAW, FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEBTS OF 
 A LIVING, OR THE DEBTS AND BEQUESTS OF A DECEASED MAS 
 TER, AT THE SUIT OF CREDITORS OR LEGATEES. 
 
 In the British West Indies, where the law is similar to that 
 which is expressed in this proposition, well-informed writers 
 seem to regard the sales of slaves by process of law, as produc 
 tive of more cruel consequences than those which arise from 
 voluntary alienation. Mr. Bryan Edwards, who, it will be 
 
 such person or persons shall severally forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds, 
 with costs of suit, for every such offence, to be recovered by action of debt, 
 &c. 8cc. at the, suit of any person who will sue for the same, one moiety, &,c. 
 for the use of the plaintiff," &c. There is but little humanity, however, in 
 this provision. Slaves separated from each other by a distance of ten miles, 
 might never see each other. Besides the separation of children, from their 
 parent, after four years of age, is unwarrantable cruelty. 
 
 * " This law," says the Compiler of the annals of the sovereign Council of 
 Martinique, " has always been rigidly executed, whenever a claim has been 
 set up, on the part of the purchaser. I have known slaves who have been 
 sent to Guadaloupe, or St. Domingo, to be expatriated and sold, to reclaim 
 their children remaining in our colony, with success, through the action of 
 the purchasers in the colonies to which they were sent." See Stephen s 
 Slavery, 69 and 70, citing Annalcs de la Martinique, tome 1, p. 285, 
 
52 
 
 recollected, was the champion of slavery and of the slave 
 trade, in his History of the West Indies, vol. 2, book 4, chap, 
 5, after speaking of certain regulations which had been proposed 
 for the melioration of slavery, uses this language: "But these 
 and all other regulations which can be devised for the protec 
 tion and improvement of this unfortunate class of people, will 
 be of little avail, unless, as a preliminary measure, they shall 
 be exempted from the cruel hardships to which they are fre 
 quently liable, of being sold by creditors, and made subject, in 
 a course of administration by executors, to the payment of all 
 debts, both of simple contract and speciality." This he stig 
 matises as a " grievance remorseless and tyrannical in its 
 principles, and dreadful in its effects" the revival " in a 
 country that pretends to Christianity of the odious severity of 
 the Roman law, which declared sentient beings to be inter res 
 a practice injurious to the national character, and disgraceful to 
 humanity. A good negro," continues he, " with his wife and 
 young family rising about him, is seized on by the sheriff s offi 
 cer, forcibly separated from his wife and children, dragged to 
 public auction, purchased by a stranger, and perhaps sent to 
 terminate his miserable existence in the mines of Mexico ; and 
 all this without any crime or demerit on his part, real or pre 
 tended. He is punished because his master is unfortunate." 
 
 It would be in vain for me to attempt to augment the horror 
 which every well-regulated mind must feel from this eloquent 
 description of the cruelty of this law. For humanity s sake, I 
 rejoice to say, that the sphere of its operation is by no means 
 co-extensive with the prevalence of slavery. With the excep 
 tion of the British colonies in the West Indies, and I suppose 
 at Demarara, and perhaps in the small islands belonging to the 
 Dutch, it obtains only in the republican states of North Ame 
 rica!!* And here again I recur to Mr. Stephen, as ample 
 
 * From the generality of this remark, the state of Louisiana must be except- 
 ed. It will be recollected, that, at the beginning of this chapter, a law was 
 extracted from the Civil Code of the state, by which slaves are declared to be 
 real estate to be ranked among immoveable property. When, therefore, the 
 owner of slaves is, as I presume is most commonly the case, possessed of land, 
 the slave cannot be separated from it by process of law. Besides this humane 
 regulation, there are several others, which deserve to be signalized, viz. " If, 
 
53 
 
 authority. " Of the liability," says he, " of slaves to be seized 
 and sold separate from the land they cultivate, by the master s 
 creditors, for the payment of his debts it may safely, I believe, 
 be pronounced, that a precedent to such cruel injustice is not to 
 be found in any part of the old world." " Plantation slaves, 
 not only in the Spanish and Portuguese, but in the French colo 
 nies also, are real estate, and attached to the soil they cultivate, 
 partaking therewith all the restrainsts upon voluntary alienation 
 to which the possessor of the land is there liable, and they can 
 not be seized or sold by creditors for satisfaction of the debts of 
 the owner." It has already been stated, that by the Code Noir, 
 art. 47, the husband cannot be sold without the wife, nor the 
 parents without the children. " Sales made contrary to this 
 regulation, by process of law under seizure for debts, are de 
 clared void." See Stephen s Slavery, fyc. 68-9. 
 
 Since, then, from what has been said upon this and upon the 
 last preceding proposition, it appears no restraint (except a par 
 tial one in the state of Louisiana) is imposed upon the sale 
 and transfer of slaves* but that these may take place, not only 
 at the will of the master, but against his will by process of law, 
 8?c~ sufficient authority is at once disclosed for the prosecution, 
 
 at a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled through 
 old age or otherwise, and who have children, such slaves shall not be sold but 
 with such of his or her children whom he or she may think proper to go with." 
 1 Martin s Digest, 612, act of July 7, 1806. 
 
 " Every person is expressly prohibited from selling separately from their 
 mothers, the children who shall not have attained the full age of ten years." 
 Ibid. These provisions have probably been suggested by a knowledge of the 
 much more humane ones which are comprised in the Code Noir of Louis XIV. 
 extracts from which are given in the text of the former proposition. I call the 
 Code Noir much more humane, for though the slaves disabled by old age, 8tc. 
 according to the Louisiana law, are not to be sold apart from their children 
 without their consent, yet the master may retain them and sell their children, 
 and thus the like painful separation be effected. 
 
 * This, as most of the remarks in this work, applies exclusively to those 
 states in which laws for the abolition of slavery have not been enacted. For, 
 in these latter states, at least, whenever the abolition of slavery has been, by a 
 law, gradual in its operation, it has been found necessary to prevent slaves 
 from being carried out of their respective limits. And in Delaware, though 
 a slave-holding state, slaves cannot be exported from the state without the 
 license of two justices of the court of quarter sessions. Ad of June 14, 1793, 
 ch. 20. 
 
54 
 
 to any extent, of the inter-territorial slave trade which exists 
 among us. Many of the slave-holding states, however, while 
 they permit their citizens to sell their slaves to whom they 
 please, and to carry them where they please, yet, for reasons of 
 policy, have found it expedient to enact laws to prohibit, in a 
 great measure, the further introduction of them into their re 
 spective limits. Laws with this aspect, have been enacted in 
 the states of Delaware, Maryland, North and South Carolina, 
 Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana. The act of as 
 sembly of North Carolina, which, being one of the earliest,* 
 has probably served as a precedent in the other states, deserves 
 particular commemoration, and I therefore transcribe those sec 
 tions which are important to the present inquiry: " From and 
 after the first day of May next, no slave or indented servant of 
 colour shall be imported or brought into this state by land or 
 water; nor shall any slave or indented servant of colour, who 
 may be imported or brought contrary to the intent and mean 
 ing of this act, be bought, sold or hired by any person what 
 ever. 
 
 " Section 2. Every person importing or bringing slaves or 
 indented servants of colour into this state, after the said first day 
 of May next, by land or water, contrary to the provisions of 
 this act, shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred pounds 
 for each and every slave or indented servant of colour so im 
 ported or brought. And every person who shall knowingly 
 sell, buy or hire such slave or indented servant of colour, shall, 
 in like manner, forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred pounds 
 jfor each and every slave, &c. ; one moiety of which forfeiture 
 shall be to the use of the state, and the other moiety to him or 
 them who shall sue for the same, &c. 
 
 ** Section 3. It shall be the duty of all justices of the peace, 
 sheriffs, coroners, constables or other judicial and ministerial 
 officers of this state, to use all reasonable and lawful means to 
 carry this act into effect; which if they or any of them neglect 
 
 * The law of Delaware bears date a few years anterior to that of North Caro 
 lina, but the provisions of the act of the latter state have been adopted, with 
 but little variation, in the other states. 
 
55 
 
 to do, it shall be deemed a misdemeanor in office. And any 
 officer who shdl fail, neglect or refuse upon application, to per 
 form the duties aforesaid, shall be held and deemed liable to the 
 foreitures inflicted on those who may import or bring a slave 
 or indented servant of colour into this state in the first instance, 
 and shall be proceeded against in the like manner and to the like 
 effect." 
 
 To the generality of this prohibition the following exceptions 
 are added: 
 
 " Section 4. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent 
 any person or persons, being citizens of the United States, or 
 subjects or citizens of foreign countries, who intend to reside and 
 settle within the limits of this state, from bringing with him, 
 her or them, such slaves or servants of colour as they may think 
 proper ; or to prevent such persons from travelling with their 
 slaves, &c. through this state, in order to settle in another state; 
 or to prohibit any citizen of this state, who may obtain slaves, 
 &c. by marriage, gift, legacy, devise or descent; or who hath 
 heretofore entered into bona fide contracts, from bringing the 
 slaves or servants of colour so obtained or contracted for, into this 
 state, by land or water." And in order to guard against an abuse 
 of the privileges conferred by these exceptions, it is made the 
 duty of the persons coming within them to make oath, that the 
 slaves introduced are not intended for traffic, nor in evasion of the 
 act of assembly above cited. Hay wood s Manual, 533-4, act of 
 1794, chap. 2. And see 2 Brevard s Digest, 256 to 261 inclu 
 sive, (actsoflSQO, 1802 #1803,); Laws of Maryland, act of 
 1796, chap. 67; Laws of Delaware, act of 1787, chap. 145, 
 7, and act of 1789, ch. 193; 2 Litt. Sf Swi. II G2, act of 1815; 
 Prince s Digest, 373-4,* act of 1817; Louisiana, act of 1826, 
 (see pamphlet laws. ) 
 
 The number of slaves admissible into the above states, in vir 
 tue of the proviso, as to persons removing with slaves into the 
 state, and in favour of those who may derive them by gift, de- 
 
 * The African slave trade was prohibited in Georgia in 1798, by an article 
 of her constitution, art. 4, 11. But it was not until 1817, that the act of the 
 legislature was procured for the prohibition of the inter-territorial traffic. 
 
 
56 
 
 scent, marriage or devise, it is probable would not greatly aug 
 ment this species of population. It must, however, be evident, 
 that while every coloured person is presumed to be a slave, and 
 while a transfer of such is permitted without restraint among 
 citizens of the same state, no matter how remote in distance 
 may be the places of their respective residences, that it cannot 
 be very difficult, especially with the pretext which is supplied 
 by the proviso, to introduce within the extensive limits of most 
 of the above states, as many slaves as any one, lured by a high 
 price, may choose. At the present time, I presume there is 
 but little temptation to prosecute this traffic, in the states where 
 the prohibitory law has been adopted; for a mart is open in the 
 new states of Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, and in the 
 territories of East and West Florida, Arkansas and Missouri, 
 which is not likely to be glutted for many years to come. And 
 even Virginia,* after having, in the year 1778, enacted an 
 
 * Between the years 1699 and 1772, the legislature of Virginia passed nu 
 merous acts to discourage, the importation of slaves. The means resorted to 
 for this purpose, was the imposition of a considerable duty on imported 
 slaves. See 2 Tucker s Blackstone, Appendix, 49, 50. The royal negative was ex 
 ercised in relation to several of these acts, and it is abundantly demonstrated 
 by Judge Tucker, that a direct effort by the colony would have been entirely 
 unavailing. The fate of an act of this description, which was attempted by the 
 assembly of Pennsylvania, in the year 1712, might be cited as additional proof 
 of this disposition on the part of the crown. At the period of our revolution, 
 a strong conviction of the impolicy and inhumanity of the traffic in slaves, 
 seems to have existed in Virginia. And in the year 1778, as is stated in the 
 text, an entire inhibition of the importation of slaves within her borders, except 
 such as might be brought by emigrants to the state, or might be derived by 
 her citizens from descent, marriage or devise, took place. This humane act, 
 after having undergone, by subsequent legislatures, several revisions and slight 
 mutations, without materially affecting its principles, was, in the year 1819, 
 almost wholly annulled wholly it could not be, from the paramount force of 
 the constitution and laws of the United States. How humiliating the contrast 
 which is exhibited by the provisions of this act of 1819, and the following quo 
 tation from the preamble to the constitution of this state, promulgated on the 
 29th June, 1776: " Whereas George the third, king, &c. heretofore entrusted 
 with the exercise of the kingly office in this government, hath endeavoured 
 to pervert the same into a detestable and insupportable tyranny, by prompting 
 our negroes to rise in arms among us, those very negroes, whom, BY AN INHUMAN 
 
 USE QF HIS NEGATIVE, HE HATH REFUSED US PERMISSION TO EXCLUDE BY LAW." 
 
57 
 
 inhibition of the importation of slaves, with a few exceptions, 
 within her borders, has recently resumed her ancient policy, 
 and now proclaims her willingness to receive all those, not con 
 victed of crimes, who have been " born within the United 
 States, or any territory thereof, or within the District of Colum 
 bia." 1 Rev. Code, 421-2, act 0/1S19. 
 
 I will conclude my observations on the subject of this and the 
 next preceding section, by holding up for the imitation of those 
 whom it may concern, the conduct of the aborigines of our 
 country, whom, in courtesy to those for whom this is written, I 
 shall style savages. Speaking of the Seminole Indians, the 
 author of a small work, published at Charleston, South Carolina, 
 in the year 1822, entitled " Notices of East Florida, with an 
 account of the Seminole nation of Indians, by a recent tra 
 veller in the Province," says: " Another trait in their charac 
 ter, is their great indulgence to their slaves. Though hunger 
 and want be stronger than even the sacra fames auri, the great 
 est pressure of these evils never occasions them to impose oner 
 ous labours on the negroes, or to dispose of them, though tempted 
 by high offers, if the latter are umvilling to be sold. " 
 
 Prop. VIII. ASLAVE 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 
 WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED FROM HIM. 
 
 In a former part of this chapter, the several laws which pro 
 fess to give redress to the slave for cruelty inflicted upon him 
 by his master, were brought together, their principles discussed, 
 and their inefficacy exposed. By none of these, it will be per 
 ceived, however, could the slave appear in any capacity against 
 his master, and therefore, though they may seem to have some 
 connexion with this proposition, I do not deem it fit or neces 
 sary to make any comment upon them in this place. The law 
 is unquestionably, as stated above, without any exception or 
 limitation. 
 
 Prop. IX. SLAVES CANNOT REDEEM THEMSELVES, NOR OB 
 TAIN A CHANGE OP MASTERS, THOUGH CRUEL TREATMENT MAY 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 HAVE RENDERED SUCH CHANGE NECESSARY FOR THEIR PERSON 
 AL SAFETY. 
 
 This proposition holds good, as to the right of redemption 
 in all the slave-holding states, and equally true is it, as re 
 spects the right to compel a change of masters, except in 
 Louisiana. The new civil code of that state, contains a regu 
 lation by which the latter privilege may sometimes, perhaps, 
 be obtained by the slave. Yet the conditions upon which its 
 extension to the slave depends, are such, that it needs strong 
 proof to induce the belief that the law has ever been called into 
 action. For it requires as preliminaries First, that the master 
 be convicted of cruelty, a task so formidable, that it can 
 hardly be ranked among possibilities; and, secondly, it is af 
 terwards, optional with the judge, whether or not, to make 
 the decree in favour of the slave. I extract the article of the 
 code, which is in these words ; " No master shall be compelled 
 to sell his slave, but in one of t\vo cases, to wit: the first, when 
 being only co-proprietor of the slave, his co-proprietor demands 
 the sale, in order to make 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." <flrt. 192. 
 
 The constitution of Mississippi, as we have before seen, 
 empowers the legislature to enact a law for the benefit of the 
 slave in this particular,* yet, though the subject of cruelty by 
 the master to his slave has claimed a portion of their attention, 
 the humane design of the constitution has been disregarded. 
 This neglect, not only in Mississippi, but in all the slave-hold 
 ing states, is the more remarkable, inasmuch, as in the codes of 
 several of these same states, a provision of this nature exists for 
 the cases of indented servants and apprentices. See particu 
 larly, Prince s Digest, 458. Such a regulation, every one who 
 will take the trouble to reflect on the subject, must consider in 
 dispensable for the slave s protection. What a mockery must it 
 
 * See, supra, page 42. 
 
59 
 
 be to pass laws professedly to punish the master s cruelty to his 
 slave, if the slave is still to be left in the power of the same 
 master, exasperated by the punishment and disgrace which must 
 ensue from conviction. " Would you," said Mr. Randolph, in 
 his speech, delivered* in the house of representatives, on the 
 imprisonment of the Spanish officers in Florida, " would you 
 send a slave who had been abused by his overseer to that very 
 overseer for protection." 
 
 Prop. X. SLAVES BEING OBJECTS OF PROPERTY, IF INJURED 
 
 BY THIRD PERSONS, THEIR OWNERS MAY BRING SUIT AND RE 
 COVER DAMAGES FOR THE INJURY. 
 
 This is a maxim of the common law, with respect to proper 
 ty in general, and it may, therefore, be assumed to be the law 
 of all the slave-holding states, in regard to slaves also. Taken 
 strictly, it does not operate as a shield to the slave against cor 
 poral aggression, unless the violence used is so great as to de 
 teriorate the property of the master. And so, a decision of 
 the supreme court of Maryland, has established the law to be, 
 in that state. " There must be, a loss of service, or at least, 
 a diminution of the faculty of the slave for bodily labour, to 
 warrant an action by the master. 1 Harris and Johnson s Re 
 ports, 4. Cornfute vs. Dale. 
 
 A case, the report of which may be found in 2 Bay s Re 
 ports, 70, by the name of Sims White vs. James Chambers, 
 was decided by the constitutional court of appeals in South Ca 
 rolina, in the year 1796, by which the master was enabled to 
 sustain his suit against a third person, for a corporal injury to 
 his slave, although a loss of service was not alleged in the de 
 claration. The following is the statement prefixed to the case, 
 by the reporter. " Special action in the case for beating the 
 plaintiff s negro man. It came out in evidence on the trial, 
 that the negro in question, had the care of his master s fishing 
 canoe, on Sullivan s Island, when the defendant went down to 
 the landing place, where it was, and said he would take it and 
 go out fishing in it. The negro told him he could not have it, 
 
 * February 2nh, 1822. 
 
60 
 
 as his master had given him orders to let no one take it away, 
 as he was in the constant habit of using it himself, and he ex 
 pected him down every minute to go out in it. The defendant, 
 however, persisted in taking it away, and the negro in obey 
 ing his master s orders in refusing to let him have it: upon 
 which some high words passed between them on both sides, 
 whereupon the defendant struck him a blow with his fist, and 
 then took up a paddle, which was in the canoe, and knocked, 
 him down, and afterwards beat him very severely, which 
 laid him up for several days, before he was able to go about 
 his master s business again. 7 Having given the reader this 
 statement of the facts, in the case, it is fit that I should gratify his 
 curiosity by a faithful record of the verdict. He will, then, 
 be enabled to form some estimate of the degree of protection, 
 which is derived by the slave from his owner s right of action 
 against third persons for brutal violence to the slave. The jury 
 "found a verdict, for .five pounds sterling, and costs of suit! 1" 
 
 Let not the jury only, be reproached with [this verdict. A 
 whole community are implicated with them. A section of the 
 negro act of 1740, which was in force when this decision was 
 given, and is, indeed, the law of South Carolina at the present 
 hour, has fixed a measure of damages, which fully sustains the 
 conduct of the jury. "If any negro or other slave, who shall 
 be employed in the lawful business or service of his master, 
 owner, overseer, &c. shall be beaten, &c. by any person or 
 persons, not having sufficient cause or lawful authority for so 
 doing, and shall be maimed or disabled by such beating, from 
 performing his or her work, such person and persons so offend 
 ing, shall forfeit and pay, to the owner or owners of such 
 slave, the sum of fifteen shillings current money, per diem, 
 for every day of his lost time, and also the charge of the cure 
 of such slave." 2 Brevard s Digest, 231-2. 
 
 I do not find any provision on this subject, among the laws of 
 the other slave-holding states, except in Louisiana, where an 
 act of assembly, in most respects analagous to that which I 
 have cited from the code of South Carolina, has been passed 
 with a special penalty adapted for the benefit of the master, 
 where the injury to the slave is of a most aggravated charac- 
 
61 
 
 ter. For " if the slave," (maimed, fyc.) be forever rendered 
 unable to work, the offender shall be compelled to pay the 
 value of said slave, according to the appraisement made by two 
 freeholders, appointed by each of the parties; and the slave 
 thus disabled, shall be forever maintained at the expense of the 
 person who shall have thus disabled him, which person shall be 
 compelled to maintain and feed* him agreeably to the duties of 
 masters towards their slaves, as ordered by this act. " 1 Martin s 
 Digest, 630-2. 
 
 From the abstract of the cases decided in Maryland and in 
 South Carolina, and especially from the laws which I have here 
 quoted, it will be perceived that the protection of slaves, from 
 the violent and wanton assaults of those, not their masters, &c. 
 is scarcely to be looked for, as a consequence of the master s 
 right to be compensated for the deterioration of his property 
 in the slave. The purpose of these laws, is not, in truth, the 
 protection of the slave, but the vindication of the master s rights 
 of property.! And yet in slave-holding countries, this right 
 of action in the master, is, not unfrequently, proclaimed to be 
 a sufficient protection to the slave: it would be more just to say, 
 that it is the only one which is accorded to him. 
 
 Prop. XI. SLAVES CAN MAKE NO CONTRACT. 
 
 Besides such of the laws referred to under Proposition V. of 
 this chapter as relate to this proposition, it may be added, that 
 a slave cannot even contract matrimony the association which 
 takes place among slaves, and is called marriage, being properly 
 designated by the word contubernium a relation which has no 
 sanctity, and to which no civil rights are attached. " A slave 
 has never maintained an action against the violator of his bed. 
 A slave is not admonished for incontinence, or punished for 
 fornication or adultery; never prosecuted for bigamy, or petty 
 treason for killing a husband being a slave, any more than ad- 
 
 * See as to food and clothing, supra, pages 28-9. 
 
 \ By an extreme refinement of this principle, it has been held, in North 
 Carolina, that " patrols are not liable to the master, for inflicting punishment 
 on his slave, unless their conduct clearly demonstrates MALICE AGAIJJTST THE 
 MASTER. 1 Hawk s Reports, 418. Tote vs. O Neal. 
 
62 
 
 mitted to an appeal for murder." Opinion of Daniel Dulany, 
 Esq. Attorney General of Maryland, 1 Maryland Reports, 
 561, 563. 
 
 Prop. XII. SLAVERY is HEREDITARY AND PERPETUAL. 
 
 This is not merely a corollary from the clause of the act of 
 assembly which was extracted near the beginning of this chap 
 ter, but is the effect of an express declaration found in the same 
 act of assembly, which, having been already transcribed, need 
 not be here inserted. 
 
 That a child should be deprived of any of its natural rights 
 in consequence of its parents misfortunes, is surely not the de 
 duction of reason from any known principle applicable to the, 
 social condition of man. Yet the hereditary nature of slavery 
 has probably been an incident of the institution, in every age 
 and among every people, where the institution has been tole 
 rated. * It was so with the Hebrews, both before and after the 
 Mosaic dispensation it was so with them during their bondage 
 to the Egyptians, the Helots of Sparta, and the Roman slave, 
 suffered the like injustice. 
 
 But the perpetuity of slavery, the natural product of its in 
 heritable quality, received a check by the Mosaic polity. The 
 Israelites having been miraculously freed from the yoke of the 
 Egyptians, it was ordained in unequivocal terms, that a Hebrew 
 should not retain his brother whom he might buy as a servant 
 more than six years, against his consent, but that in the seventh 
 year he should go out free, for nothing. If he came by himself 
 he should go out by himself; if he were married (when he came) 
 his wife should go out with him. Exodus, ch. 21, v. 2, 3. Deut. 
 ch. 15, v. 12. Jeremiah, ch. 34, v. 13. 
 
 * In Massachusetts, " several negroes born in this country of imported slaves, 
 demanded their freedom of their masters by suits at law, and obtained it by 
 judgments of the courts." See Winchenden vs. Hatfield, &?e. 4 Massachusetts Re 
 ports, 128. But these cases can hardly be ranked as exceptions to the general 
 allegation in the text. They appear to have been the effect of collusion be 
 tween the masters and the slaves. For, according to Chief Justice Parsons, 
 " the defence of the master was faintly made, for such was the temper of the 
 times, that a restless discontented slave was worth little, and when Ms freedom 
 was obtained in a course of legal proceedings, the master was not holden for his 
 fitture support, if he became poor." 
 
68 
 
 Besides this important regulation, Hebrew slaves were, with 
 out exception, restored to freedom by the jubilee. I am aware 
 that the authority of respectable names may be avouched for the 
 opinion, that the benefit of the jubilee, as to this particular, was 
 enjoyed by all classes of bondmen, according to the literal im 
 port of the command: " Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and 
 proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and UNTO ALL THE 
 INHABITANTS THEREOF." Leviticus, ch. 25, v. 10. With an 
 anxious desire to sustain this opinion, if tenable, it appears to me, 
 that not only was such a privilege not required by the general 
 purpose for which the jubilee was appointed, but the positive 
 language of the 44, 45 and 46th verses of the same chapter, for 
 bids such an inference. 
 
 It seems, however, highly probable, that the term perpetual, 
 in its proper and absolute sense, was not applicable to the sla 
 very by the Israelites even of the heathen nations. For the 
 command was given to Abraham, and was not abrogated by 
 Moses, that " he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
 with thy money, must be circumcised." Genesis, ch. 17, v. 13, 
 Jewish commentators agree, that this command was strictly con 
 strued and carried faithfully into practice. Thus, it is said by 
 Maimonides, " Whether a servant be born in the power of an 
 Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the mas 
 ter is to bring them both into the covenant. But he that is 
 born in the house is to be entered upon the eighth day, and he 
 that is bought with money on the day on which the master re 
 ceives him, unless the slave be unwilling. For, if the master 
 receives a grown slave, and he be unwilling, his master is to 
 bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by 
 love and kindness, for one year; after which, should he refuse 
 so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than the twelve 
 month, and the master must send him back to the strangers from 
 whence he came, for the GOD of Jacob will not accept any 
 other than the worship of a willing heart. " Maimon. Hilcoth 
 Miloth, chap. 1, sect. 8. See Gill s Exposition of the Old and 
 New Testaments, fyc. 
 
 And, according to Genesis, chap. 17, ver. 10, compared with 
 jRomans, chap. 4, ver. 11, by the rite of circumcision, the re- 
 
64 
 
 elpient was consecrated to the service of the true GOD. See 
 3 Home s Introd. to Crit. Study of the Holy Scriptures, 413, 
 And on such a one were, in consequence, conferred nearly all 
 the rights of a son of Abraham. " Although," says the respect 
 able author last quoted, " the constitution of the Jewish polity, 
 and the laws of Moses, allowed no other nations to participate 
 in their sacred rites, yet they did not exclude from them such 
 persons as were willing to qualify themselves for conforming to 
 them. Hence, they admitted proselytes, who renounced the 
 worship of idols and joined in the religious services of the Jews, 
 although they were not held in the same estimation as Jews by 
 birth, descent and language. " Ibid. 255. 
 
 Notwithstanding the bearing of these authorities, I would not 
 be thought to speak of the conclusion which they tend to esta 
 blish, with a confidence approximating to positiveness. The 
 dealings of the Almighty with the heathen nations, through the 
 instrumentality of his chosen people the Israelites, is a subject 
 not to be discoursed upon with the freedom of ordinary criti 
 cism. And on this point especially what effect had proselytism 
 on the condition of heathen slaves held by Hebrews, there is an 
 obscurity which leaves the mind unsatisfied. 
 
 But whether or not the proselyte heathen slave became enti 
 tled to freedom at the jubilee, is of no importance to us, so far 
 as we are concerned in respect to our duties to the enslaved. 
 fts to us, there exists no people who can be called heathen, in 
 the sense in which that appellation was used by the Israelites. 
 The master and the slave are of the same class are both Gen 
 tiles. The only legitimate inference, therefore, which in a com 
 parison with the Mosaic regulations analogy furnishes, is, that 
 our conduct to slaves should be the same, as was the conduct of 
 the Israelites to Hebrew slaves. 
 
65 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OP THE CONDITION OP THE SLAVE CONSIDERED AS A MEMBER OP 
 CIVIL SOCIETY. 
 
 To speak of a slave as a member of civil society may, by some, 
 be regarded a solecism. Such a condition, however, is recog 
 nized by the laws of the slave-holding states. To what extent, 
 and for what purpose, it is recognised, will be sufficiently mani 
 fested, in the course of this chapter; which, for the sake of per 
 spicuity, will be arranged and examined under the following 
 titles: 
 
 I. A slave cannot be a witness against a white person, either 
 in a civil or criminal cause. 
 
 II. He cannot be a party to a civil suit. 
 
 III. The benefits of education are withheld from the slave. 
 
 IV. The means for moral and religious instruction are not 
 granted to the slave ; on the contrary, the efforts of the humane 
 and charitable to supply these wants are discountenanced by 
 law. 
 
 V. Submission is required of the slave, not to the will of his 
 master only, but to that of all other white persons. 
 
 VI. The penal codes of the slave-holding states bear much 
 more severely upon slaves than upon white persons. 
 
 VII. Slaves are prosecuted and tried upon criminal accusa 
 tions in a manner inconsistent with the rights of humanity. 
 
 I. A SLAVE CANNOT BE A WITNESS AGAINST A WHITE PER 
 SON, EITHER IN A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CAUSE. 
 
 I have had occasion, very frequently, to advert to this sub 
 ject, as the cause of the greatest evils of slavery. Acts of 
 assembly apparently intended to give protection to the slave 
 from his master s cruelty, have been adduced, and yet shown 
 to be altogether nugatory, in consequence of the rule of law 
 which forms the title of this section. In truth, in our slave- 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 holding states, this exclusion is not confined to the evidence of 
 slaves, but natives of Africa, and their descendants, whatever 
 may be the shade of their complexion, and whether bond or free, 
 are under the like degrading disability. In a few of the slave- 
 holding states, the rule derives its authority from custom in 
 others, the legislatures have sanctioned it by express enactment. 
 In Virginia, there is an act of assembly in these words: " Any 
 negro or mulatto, bond or free, shall be a good witness in pleas 
 of the commonwealth for or against negroes or mulattoes, bond 
 or free, or in civil pleas where free negroes or mulattoes shall 
 alone be parties, and in no other cases whatever." 1 R. V. C. 
 422. Similar in Missouri, 2 Missouri Laws, 600. In Missis 
 sippi, Mississippi Rev. Code, 372. In Kentucky, 2 Lift. # 
 Swi. 1150. In Alabama, Toulmin s Digest, 627. In Mary 
 land, Maryland Laivs, act of 1717, ch. 13, 2 fy 3, and act of 
 1751, ch. 14, 4. In North Carolina and Tennessee, act of 
 1777, ch. 2, 42. And in OHIO, act of Assembly, of January 
 25, 1807.* 
 
 Such being the law, it requires no extraordinary perspicacity 
 to pronounce, that its effects must be most injurious to the un 
 happy victim of slavery. It places the slave, who is seldom 
 within the view of more than one white person at a time, en 
 tirely at the mercy of this individual, without regard to his 
 fitness for the exercise of power whether his temper be mild 
 and merciful, or fierce and vindictive. A white man may, with 
 impunity, if no other white be present, torture, maim, and even 
 murder his slave, in the midst of any number of negroes and 
 mulattoes. Having absolute dominion over his slave, the mas 
 ter or his delegate, if disposed to commit illegal violence upon 
 him, may easily remove him to a spot safe from the observation 
 of a competent witness. Indeed, it is probable, few white per 
 sons ordinarily reside upon the same plantation, since I find, in 
 most of the slave-holding states, the owners of slaves are com 
 pelled by a considerable penalty, " to keep at least one white 
 
 * The existence of such a law in Ohio, will, I suspect, create surprise even 
 in the mind of an inhabitant of a slave-holding state. Stronger proof of the 
 effect of prejudice could scarcely be produced. 
 
67 
 
 man on each plantation to which a certain number of slaves is 
 attached" a law which would not have been necessary ^unless 
 a contrary practice was prevalent. See Prince s Digest, 455, &?c. 
 Plain and conclusive as this reasoning must be to the mind of 
 any candid person, I think it best, nevertheless, to corroborate 
 it by the direct testimony of several distinguished persons, 
 whose means of information entitle them to speak with authority. 
 Sir William Young, then governor of Tobago, and an advocate 
 of slavery, thus expressed himself in 1811: " Instances of bad 
 treatment and cruelty, and of unjust and immoderate punish 
 ments of slaves, I think occur exclusively within the narrow 
 trading or household circle of unattached slaves; and, I am sorry 
 to say, have frequently been reported to me, with circumstan 
 ces of atrocity to be believed, though (for reasons which I shall 
 give) not to be proved against lower white or coloured people 
 domineering over from two to ten or more wretched beings, 
 their slaves. In such cases, what protection by law have the 
 slaves against the abuse of power over them, by Europeans, or 
 other free people? / think the slaves have no protection. In 
 this, and I doubt not in every other island, there arc, laws for 
 the protection of slaves, and good ones; but circumstances in 
 the administration of ivhatever law render it a dead letter. 
 When the intervention of the law," he continues, " is most 
 required, it will have the least effect; as, in cases where a vin 
 dictive and cruel master has care to commit the most atrocious 
 cruelties, even to murder his slave, NO FREE PERSON BEING 
 PRESENT TO WITNESS THE ACT. There appears to me a radical 
 defect in the administration of justice throughout the West In 
 dies, in whatever case the wrongs done to a slave are under 
 consideration; or rather, that justice cannot in truth be ad 
 ministered, controlled as it is by a law of evidence which co 
 vers the most guilty European with impunity, provided that 
 when having a criminal intent, he is cautious not to commi 
 the crime in the presence of a free witness. I should consider 
 it as inconsistent with the respect and deference I bear to the sa 
 gacity and wisdom of the august body for whose use this report 
 is framed, to idly enlarge it with the enumeration of humane 
 laws for the protection of slaves, all rendered nugatory by the 
 
68 
 
 conditions of evidence required in their administration." See 
 for this extract from Sir William Young, Report, &c. a note, to 
 page, 167 of Stephen s West Indian Slavery, fyc. page 168-9. 
 Mr. Stephen has collected the statements of many others hold 
 ing official stations in the British West India colonies, all con 
 curring in relation to this one point the inefficacy of all laws 
 made for the protection of slaves, in consequence of the rejec 
 tion of the testimony of slaves. I avail myself of an additional 
 citation from this source. The Chief Justice,* &c. of the island 
 of St. Vincent, gives the following answer to parliamentary in 
 quiries proposed to him in the year 1791. " The only instances 
 in which their (slaves) persons appear to be protected by the 
 letter of the law, are in cases of murder, dismemberment and 
 mutilation; and in these cases, as the evidence of slaves is never 
 admitted against a white man, the difficulty of establishing 
 the facts is so great, that white men are in a manner put be 
 yond the reach of the law." 
 
 I subjoin a further proof, not that I consider the present topic 
 difficult of explanation, but because what I now adduce is bor 
 rowed from the authentic records of a slave-holding state of our 
 own country. The negro act of South Carolina contains the 
 following preamble to one of its sections: " Whereas, by reason 
 of the extent and distance of plantations in this province, the 
 inhabitants are far removed from each other, and many cruel 
 ties may be committed on slaves, because no white person may 
 be present to give evidence of the same," &c. 2 Brevard s Di 
 gest, 242. 
 
 After such admissions of the evils of this law, we are natu 
 rally induced to inquire what reasons have led to its adoption, 
 and especially what can justify its continuance. 
 
 It is alleged by its advocates, that it is coeval with the insti 
 tution of slavery; and they add, moreover, as if this circum 
 stance were of great moment, that slavery has existed since the 
 time of Noah. 2 Brevard s Digest, 222, note. That servitude 
 under some form is of a very remote antiquity, there can be no 
 doubt; but it cannot be established, it is believed, by proofs at 
 
 * Drewry Ottley, Esq. 
 
69 
 
 all worthy of reliance, that the rejection of the testimony of the 
 slave has always been a concomitant evil. * If indeed it could 
 be shown that such had, in all ages, been the misfortune of the 
 oppressed, it would not surely, on that account, carry conviction, 
 of the justice of the rejection, to the mind of any one, who rightly 
 weighs the claims of humanity, and who believes that " to do 
 justly, and love mercy," are duties of inflexible and perpetual 
 obligation. 
 
 Villanage, as it existed in England, furnishes no authority for 
 the universal application of this rule. - A villain was a good wit 
 ness, in civil cases, against any one except his lord; see Bro. 
 abridg. tit. villeinage, 66; and, as he might prosecute his lord 
 in the king s name, for violence done to his person, it is right 
 
 * Josephus, in book 4, chap. 8, 15, of his Antiquities of the Jews, (Wltis- 
 ton s translation, ) states the law on this subject differently from what we find 
 it recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament. The passage in 
 Josephus stands thus: " Let not a single witness be credited, but three or two 
 at least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. 
 .But let not the testimony of women be admitted on account of the levity and bold 
 ness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted on account of the ignobility of their 
 soul, since it is probable that they may not speak the truth, either out of hope of a-ain 
 or fear of punishment." The authority of Josephus cannot be set in compe 
 tition with that of the Sacred Scriptures, as they have descended to us. And 
 though he professes to give the law as established by Moses, and left by him 
 in writing, without any ornament or addition, yet it requires but little attention 
 to discover, that instead of the Pentateuch itself, he has furnished a commen 
 tary upon it by the Scribes and Pharisees, whose " traditions," as we are told 
 by unerring wisdom, had made " void the law." See note, to Whiston s trans 
 lation, on the text of Josephus above cited; also, 3d volume of Home s Introduction 
 to a Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures, 112, (American edition.) When, 
 therefore, we find the law of Moses, according to our Canon, prescribes nu 
 merous rules for the treatment o| servants or slaves, regulates with consider 
 able minuteness judicial proceedings in general, and makes particular mention 
 of the number of witnesses required to establish the truth, and yet is entirely 
 silent as to the competency of women and servants as witnesses, it is fair to pre 
 sume that no such disqualifications were ever sanctioned by the Jewish law 
 giver. See Deut. ch. 17, v. 6 and ch. 19, v. 15, et seq. The judges, indeed, were 
 expressly empowered to decide upon the credibility of witnesses to proceed 
 against those who testified falsely, in a summary manner, and to inflict retalia 
 tory punishment upon them. From which, I infer, that both the accuser and 
 accused had a right to produce their witnesses, and compel the hearing of them, 
 leaving the judges, like our juries, to decide upon the weight of their testi 
 mony. 
 
70 
 
 to presume, in such a case, he must have been admitted as a wit 
 ness against him also; Coke Litt. 124, a.; Dulany s Opinion, 
 1 Maryland s Reports, 561; and, without doubt, in criminal 
 cases generally, it was no exception to a witness that he was a 
 villain or bondman." Hawkin s Pleas of the Crown, book 2, 
 chap. 46, 28; Coke Litt. 124, a. 
 
 We must have recourse to the civil law for its probable origin. 
 " The general rule of that law certainly was, that a slave could 
 not be a witness, though there were exceptions to it, founded in 
 reason and policy, for men of that condition might be examined 
 when the welfare of the state, in cases of weight and difficulty, 
 required such a departure from general principles, or when other 
 evidence was unattainable." Stephen s West India Slavery, 
 171, citing Voetius s Commentary on the Pandects. This 
 latter exception, it is obvious, destroys the rule, if we are to 
 understand by it that a slave might be examined, in the defect 
 of other proof, for the inculpation of any offender against the 
 laws. And such I suppose to be the true meaning, since 
 " slaves might always (among the Romans) induce an investi 
 gation, by flying to the statues of the princes;" Cooper s Jus 
 tinian, 412; a privilege which would be of but little value, un 
 less the slave could be examined as a witness against his injurer; 
 and if thus admissible in his own case, with much more pro 
 priety could he be heard on behalf of third persons, where feel 
 ings of interest would not operate to bias him. 
 
 It may be safely averred, I believe, that this rule of evidence, 
 to the extent in which it obtains in our slave-holding states, 
 cannot challenge for its support the authority of any country, 
 either ancient or modern. For k must not be forgotten, that 
 it is not the evidence of slaves only, which is rejected by it 
 it applies equally to coloured persons, or rather to the descend 
 ants of Africans, as well to those who are free, as to those who 
 are slaves. This being the case, I shall briefly discuss the pro 
 priety of it, in its whole compass. * And first, let us sec upon 
 
 * In Virginia> a very early statute places the exclusion on the ground that 
 none but Christians should be witnesses,- and even among those, a certain de 
 scription of persons were excluded. The statute I allude to, runs thus : 
 
71 
 
 what reason it is founded, in its application to slaves. It has 
 been said, the admission of such testimony is dangerous to the 
 lives and fortunes of the whites. This charge, if adopted in its 
 most obvious sense, would seem to imply the total destitution 
 of veracity in the slave. But this conclusion must be too com 
 prehensive, since even slaves are competent witnesses, not only 
 against each other, but against free persons of colour, without 
 any restriction. Law of Virginia, 1 Rev. Code, already cited; 
 Prince s Digest, 446; Hay wood s Manual, 523; Maryland 
 Laws, act of 1751, chap. 14, 4, 8?c. fyc. 
 
 If the objection is restrained to the testimony of the slave 
 against his master, it presumes the predominance of the utmost 
 depravity of heart in the slave a depravity, which, in the grati 
 fication of a spirit of revenge,* would disregard the strongest 
 moral sanctions. To concede this, is to impute a highly crimi 
 nal negligence to the master for having the absolute dominion 
 of the slave, the dictates of humanity, as well as the plain pre 
 cepts of the gospel, demand the bestowal of such attention to the 
 religious instruction of the slave, as, in ordinary cases, would 
 prevent or extirpate such excessive malignity. 
 
 But, it is said, " the hope of gain," or " the fear of punish- 
 
 " Popish recusants convict, negroes, mulattoes and Indian servants and others 
 not being Christians, shall be deemed and taken to be persons incapable in 
 law, to be witnesses in any case whatsoever." See 3 Henning s Statutes (of Vir 
 ginia) at large, 298, act of October, 1705, (4*A Anne} sect, 31. In Maryland, 
 papacy, of course, is not subjected to the ban, but the like intolerance is never 
 theless evinced: " No negro or mulatto slave, free negro or mulatto born of a 
 white woman, during his time of servitude by law, or any Indian slave or free 
 Indian natives of this or the neighbouring provinces, (shall) be admitted and 
 received as good and valid evidence in law, in any matter or thing whatsoever 
 depending before any court of record, or before any magistrate within this 
 province, wherein any Christian white person is concerned. ". Acts of 1717, chap. 
 13, 2. 
 
 * And yet revenge does not seem to be more prevalent with blacks than 
 with whites. CLARKSON-, whose labours on behalf of the negro are so well 
 known, makes the following memorable declaration: " That he had not, after 
 a diligent and candid investigation of the conduct of emancipated slaves, under 
 a great variety of circumstances, comprising a body of more than five hundred 
 thousand, a considerable proportion of whom had been suddenly enfranchised, 
 found a single, instance of revenge or abuse of liberty." 
 
72 
 
 ment," would probably induce the slave to testify falsely, 
 " The hope of gain" will be felt chiefly, if not exclusively, in 
 investigations touching the master s interest; an objection, 
 which, if it be a valid one, degrades the master far below the 
 level of the suborned slave. " The fear of punishment" is a 
 more embarrassing difficulty so much so, indeed, that it would 
 perhaps be proper, as a general rule, to exclude such testimony 
 when offered on behalf of the master. 
 
 To every other objection, except the last, under the peculiar 
 restriction there mentioned, TRIAL BY JURY is an ample refu 
 tation. It is scarcely conceivable, that a being so degraded as 
 is a slave in the eyes of those who usually compose juries in the 
 slave-holding states, should, as a witness, operate serious injus 
 tice to a white man. Labouring under the prejudice with which 
 he is likely to be viewed by slave owners, it is fair to infer, 
 that unless fortified by other unexceptionable witnesses, or by 
 strong circumstances, a slave s testimony would ordinarily go 
 for nothing. But, as has been well remarked by Mr. Stephen, 
 " how many instances are there in which the evidence of a wit 
 ness, who is liable in a much higher degree to distrust, is essen 
 tial to the interests of justice, and may furnish a satisfactory 
 ground of decision, even for the purposes of conviction in capi 
 tal cases. Often is a necessary link in the chain of circumstan 
 tial evidence wanting, which the vilest man on earth might cre 
 dibly supply, because the other circumstances have previously 
 raised the highest presumption of its truth, and of its being a 
 truth too within the knowledge of that witness. Sometimes 
 also testimony, which is very low in credit, may justly derive 
 great weight from the consideration, that if untrue, the opposite 
 party possessed the means of refuting it by satisfactory proof, 
 which he has not produced ; and sometimes it is satisfactory, 
 because it is strongly corroborated by other evidence, though 
 neither would have separately sufficed. " The examination of 
 accomplices in crime against each other, instances of which are 
 of daily occurrence in criminal courts, is an illustration of these 
 principles. 
 
 In the ruder ages of society, courts of law, viewed the com 
 petency of witnesses with great jealousy. Persons were pre- 
 
73 
 
 vented from giving testimony then, on objections which are 
 now treated as of insufficient validity. For this improvement 
 in judicial administration we are principally indebted to the as 
 certained practical excellence of trial by jury. Besides, hus 
 band and wife, who, in general) from motives of public policy 
 and humanity are forbidden or excused from testifying for or 
 against each other, may, under some circumstances, from neces 
 sity, in legal contemplation, i. e. to prevent an entire failure 
 of justice, be heard even in their own behalf. Such is the 
 case where personal violence has been offered by the one to the 
 other. The grant of a like privilege to the slave against his 
 master, in particular, may be supported by reasons, at least, 
 equally forcible. And such a right it seems probable obtained 
 in Massachusetts, as far as we are informed, without inconve 
 nience on the contrary, I have no doubt, with decisive public 
 advantage. See supra, note to page 23. 
 
 If trial by jury is a sufficient answer to the several objections 
 against the admission of a slave s testimony, with much greater 
 force may it be urged in reference to the competency of the 
 free negro. Indeed, it is to me inconceivable, upon what plau 
 sible ground the unqualified and universal rejection of the lat 
 ter as a witness, can be supported. It is without the precedent 
 of any other country, it is believed, whether civilized or savage. 
 The freedman was a competent witness by the civil law. He 
 might even give evidence of what came to his knowledge be 
 fore his enfranchisement; a privilege not allowed by the same 
 law to the man of full age, in respect to what he learnt during 
 his nonage. Stephen, 181-2, citing Voetius ad pand. Lib. 
 xxii. Tit. 5. 2. In the West Indies, free negroes are received 
 as witnesses in civil actions against white persons. Stephen, 182 ; 
 a distinction of immense advantage, especially in a trial for 
 freedom, where it can hardly be expected a white person would 
 be able to testify as to the pedigree of a black. 
 
 While this unqualified and universal exclusion of the evi 
 dence of coloured persons prevails, it can be of but little use to 
 enact severe penalties against kidnapping. Secrecy in this crime, 
 in particular, will, as far as it is in the power of the perpetrator, be 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 preserved; and if the free negro, the injured party, cannot be 
 heard against the offender, from what other source can satisfactory 
 evidence be expected? But change the law, admit him as a wit 
 ness, and kidnapping of all crimes would be THE EASIEST OF 
 
 DETECTION.* 
 
 Confessedly great as are the evils of this harsh regulation, it 
 will naturally be asked, if a remedy of some description has 
 not been attempted. To this it may be answered, that a pre 
 posterous and wholly inefficacious one, as may be easily demon 
 strated, has been devised in South Carolina and imitated in 
 Louisiana. Having thus characterized it, it is fit, I should ex 
 hibit it to the reader that he may judge for himself; and for 
 this purpose, I give the section of the act of assembly, in which 
 it is found, without abridgment: "Whereas, by reason of the 
 extent and distance of plantations in this province, the inhabi 
 tants are far removed from each other, and many cruelties 
 may be committed on slaves because no white person may be 
 present to give evidence of the same, unless some method 
 be provided for the better discovery of such offence, and as 
 slaves^are under the government, so they ought to be under the 
 protection of masters and managers of plantations, Be it en 
 acted, That if any slave shall suffer in life, limb or member, 
 or shall be maimed, beaten or abused contrary to the direc 
 tions and true intent and meaning of this act when no white 
 person shall be present, or being present shall neglect or refuse 
 to give evidence, or be examined upon oath concerning the same; 
 in every such case the owner or other person who shall have 
 
 * Too much force cannot be given to this argument. Remote as is the city 
 of Philadelphia from those slave-holding- states in which the introduction of 
 slaves from places within the territory of the United States is freely permitted 
 and where also the market is tempting, it has been ascertained that more than 
 thirty free coloured persons, mostly children, have been kidnapped here and 
 carried away, within the last two years. Five of these, through the kind inter 
 position of several humane gentlemen, have been restored to their friends, 
 though not without great expense and difficulty ; the others are still retained 
 in bondage, and if rescued at all, it must be, by sending white witnesses a jour 
 ney of more than a thousand miles. The costs attendant upon law-suits under 
 such circumstances, will probably fall but little short of the estimated value, 
 as slaves, of the individuals kidnapped. 
 
75 
 
 the care and government of such slave, and in whose possession 
 or power such slave shall be, shall be deemed, taken, reputed 
 and adjudged to be guilty of such offence, and shall be pro 
 ceeded against accordingly without further proof, unless such 
 owner or other person as aforesaid can make the contrary ap 
 pear by good and sufficient evidence, or shall by HIS OWN OATH 
 clear and exculpate himself; which oath every court where 
 such offence shall be tried, is hereby empowered to administer, 
 and to acquit the offender if clear proof of the offence be not 
 made by two witnesses at least." 2 Brevard s Digest, 242. 
 
 The reader has probably anticipated my objections to the ex 
 traordinary provisions of this law. That the slave population, 
 were subjected to many cruelties, as is set forth in the pream 
 ble, in consequence of the exclusion of their testimony against 
 their oppressors, I have no doubt, and that the legislatures were 
 fully convinced of this I consider to be equally clear. But it 
 is by no means clear, that a remedy of the mischief wasVi- 
 tended by the enactment of this section. It would detract from 
 the intellectual character of the legislature to suppose so. 
 Could it be reasonably expected, that the presumption of guilt, 
 which the act authorizes to be made, would lead to a conviction, 
 when the party could purge himself of the accusation brought 
 against him by his own oath ? Of a crime which could be satis- 
 tied by a small pecuniary fine, perhaps it sometimes might ; 
 such instances, however, one white person only in general 
 being on the plantation, would seldom be brought to the know 
 ledge of the magistrate. But would the man, wicked enough to 
 commit murder, hesitate to screen himself from its penalties, by 
 a crime not more heinous certainly, than that which he would 
 thus conceal?* But this is a view of the law far more favourable 
 than its true construction authorizes. For it is in terms, declared, 
 
 * No one, I believe, will question the truth of this as a general remark. It 
 is not, therefore, for the purpose of fortifying 1 it, that I refer to a case, report 
 ed in the South Carolina reports of judicial decisions, in which the excul 
 patory oath was offered to be made, by a person, whom the court decided not 
 to be within the benefit of the act, and who was, immediately afterwards, upon 
 good evidence, found guilty of manslaughter. See Tfo Stale v$, Welch, 1 Bays* 
 Itcports, 172. 
 
76 
 
 that the offender shall be acquitted, upon his own oath of inno 
 cence, if clear proof of his guilt be not made by TWO wit 
 nesses at least; thus, in fact, introducing a modification of the 
 former law, not for the protection of the slave, BUT FOR THE 
 
 ESPECIAL BENEFIT OF ACRUEL MASTER OR OVERSEER ! ! ! 
 
 
 II. A SLAVE CANNOT BE A PARTY TO A CIVIL SUIT. 
 
 It has been shown in a preceding part of the sketch, that a 
 slave can neither acquire nor retain property, as his own, con 
 trary to the will of his master. It results, therefore, that he 
 cannot be a party to a civil suit, for there is no species of civil 
 suit which does not, in some way, affect property. 
 
 There is, however, an authority, which for the purpose of 
 convenient investigation may be classed as an exception to the 
 above rule, given by the laws of all the slave-holding states, to 
 persons held as slaves, BUT CLAIMING TO BE FREE, to prosecute 
 their claims to freedom before some judicial tribunal. I de 
 sign, therefore, in this place to bring into view whatever relates 
 to this subject. 
 
 The oldest law of this description, appears to have been 
 adopted by South Carolina in the year 1740. It begins with 
 what has been already extracted, but which for the sake of per 
 spicuity, it will be proper to repeat, "Be it enacted, That all 
 negroes, Indians, (free Indians in amity with this government, 
 and negroes, mulattoes and mestizoes now free, excepted,) mu- 
 lattoes and mestizoes who now are or shall hereafter be in this 
 province, and all their issue and offspring born or to be born, 
 shall be and they are hereby declared to be and remain for ever 
 hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the 
 mother, &c. &c. Provided, that if any negro, Indian, mulatto, 
 or mestizo, claim his or her freedom, it shall and may be law 
 ful for such negro, Indian, mulatto or mestizo, or any person or 
 persons whatsoever, on his or her behalf to apply to the judges 
 of his majesty s court of common pleas, by petition or motion, 
 either during the sitting of the said court, or before any of the 
 justices of the same court, at any time in vacation. And the said 
 court, or any of the justices thereof, shall, and they arc hereby 
 fully empowered to admit any person so applying to be guardian 
 
77 
 
 for any negro, Indian, mulatto or mestizo claiming his or her 
 or their freedom, and such guardian shall be enabled, entitled and 
 capable in law to bring an action of trespass, in the nature of 
 ravishment of ward, against any person who shall claim pro 
 perty in, or who shall be in possession of any such negro, In 
 dian, mulatto or mestizo, and the defendant shall and may plead 
 the general issue in such action brought, and the special matter 
 may and shall be given in evidence, and upon a general or spe 
 cial verdict found, judgment shall be given, according to the 
 very right of the cause, without having any regard to any defect 
 in the proceedings, either in form or substance. And if judg 
 ment shall be given for the plaintiff, a special entry shall be 
 made, declaring, that the ward of the plaintiff is free, and the 
 jury shall assess damages which the plaintiff s ward hath sustain 
 ed, and the court shall give judgment and award execution 
 against the defendant for such damages, with full costs of suit; 
 but in case judgment shall be given for the defendant, the 
 said court is hereby fully empowered to inflict SUCH CORPORAL 
 
 PUNISHMENT, NOT EXTENDING TO LIFE OR LIMB, On the Ward of 
 
 the plaintiff, as they in their discretion shall think fit. Pro 
 vided, that in any action or suit to be brought in pursuance of 
 the direction of this act, THE BURTHEN OP THE PROOF shall lay 
 upon the plaintiff, and it shall be always presumed that 
 every negro, Indian, mulatto and mestizo, is a slave, unless 
 the contrary be made to appear, (the Indians in amity with this 
 government excepted, in which case, the burthen of the proof 
 shall be on the defendant.)" 2 Brevard s Digest, 229-30. 
 
 In George, the act of assembly of May 10, 1770, is almost 
 literally a copy of this of South Carolina. See Prince s Digest, 
 446. 
 
 It is impossible for any humane and reflecting person to ex 
 amine the provisions of the above law, without the conviction 
 of its injustice ana cruelty. The negro, &c. claims to be free, 
 and yet he can bring no suit to investigate his master s title to 
 restrain him of his liberty, unless some one can be found mer 
 ciful enough to become his guardian, subject in any event, to 
 the expense and trouble of conducting his cause, and in case of a 
 
78 
 
 failure, to the costs of_ suit. * His judges and jurors will in all 
 probability be slave-holders, and interested, therefore, in some 
 measure, in the question which they are to try. The whole 
 community in which he lives may, so few are the exceptions, 
 be said to be hostile to his success. Being a negro, &c. by the 
 words of the act, the burthen of proof rests upon him, and 
 he is presumed to be a slave till he make the contrary ap 
 pear. This is to be effected through the instrumentality of 
 white witnesses, as has been just shown, exclusive of the testi 
 mony of those who are not white, even though they may be free 
 and of the fairest character. And, lastly, notwithstanding all 
 these obstacles to the ascertaining of the truth of his allegations, 
 the terror is superadded, should he not succeed in convincing 
 
 * In South Carolina, by an act passed in 1802, " the guardian" (in a trial 
 for freedom) "of a slave," (who may have been illegally imported into the 
 state, and is, on that account, by the same law, declared to be free,) " claiming 
 his freedom, shall be liable to double costs of suit, if his action shall be adjudg 
 ed groundless; and shall be liable to pay to the bona fide owner of such slave, 
 all such damages as shall be assessed by a jury and adjudged by any court of 
 common pleas." 2 Brevard s Digest, 260. And in Maryland, the attorney, in a 
 trial for freedom, must pay all costs, if unsuccessful, unless the court shall be 
 of opinion that there was probable cause for supposing that the petitioner had 
 a right to freedom. Jlct of Nov. 1796, chap. 67, 25. And, on such a trial, the 
 master (the defendant) is allowed twelve PEREMPTORY challenges as to the ju 
 rors. Ibid. 24. The same spirit of hostility to the claimant for freedom is 
 manifested in Virginia, where, " for aiding and abetting a slave in a trial for 
 freedom, if the claimant shall fail in his suit, a fine of one hundred dollars is 
 imposed. 1 Rev. Code, 482. Missouri has concocted a strange mixture of lenity 
 and rigour, in a law on this subject. A person claiming his freedom, may pe 
 tition the court, &,c. praying that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person, 
 and stating the ground upon which his or her claim to freedom is founded: and 
 " if in the opinion of the court, &c. the petition contains sufficient matter to autho 
 rize the commencement of a suit, the court, &c. may make An order that such 
 person be permitted to sue as a poor person, and may assignee petitioner coun 
 sel, &c. 1 Missouri Laws, 404. The privileges of suin^ as a poor person, and 
 of having counsel assigned by the court, are worthy o/ great commendation, 
 and present an enviable contrast to the ferocious spirit of the South Carolina 
 and Georgia acts; yet it is made to depend upon the (Arbitrament of the court, or 
 even of a single judge, whether the petitioner shall k heard by a jury at all. In 
 Alabama, the legislature have adopted the objeciionabk parts of the Missouri 
 law, while the benejidal provisions have been OMITTED! ! Toulmin x Digest, 
 632. 
 
79 
 
 the judge and jury of his right to freedom, of an infliction of 
 corporal punishment to any extent short of capital execution., 
 or the deprivation of a limb!!! And in Georgia, (( should 
 death happen by accident in giving this legal (moderate) correc 
 tion," according to the terms of the constitution already quoted,* 
 it will be no crime ! Such legislation forcibly reminds us of the 
 feast of Damocles though, in all soberness, it may be said, the 
 conduct of Dionysius was supreme beneficence, compared with 
 the terms of mercy contained in this act. 
 
 The harsh and unreasonable doctrine which presumes every 
 negro, &c. to be a slave, obtains, I believe, with the single 
 exception which will be hereafter noticed, in all the slave-hold 
 ing states. In_Virginia, there is no statute to this effect, yet so is 
 the law as established by judicial decisions. Thus, where in suits 
 for freedom, brought by several persons, whose descent was traced 
 to a free Indian woman, and where, as the reporters say, " On 
 the hearing, the late chancellor,! perceiving from his own view, 
 that the youngest of the appellees was perfectly white, and that 
 there were gradual shades of difference in colour between the 
 grand-mother, mother and grand-daughter, (all of whom were 
 before the court,) and considering the evidence in the cause, 
 determined that the appellees were entitled to their freedom, 
 and moreover, on the ground that freedom is the birthright of 
 every human being, which sentiment is strongly inculcated by 
 the first article of our political catechism, the bill of rights he 
 laid it down as a general position, that whenever one person 
 claims to hold another in slavery, the onus probandi (burthen 
 of proof ) lies on the claimant." The supreme court of ap 
 peals, to which the case was afterwards carried, thought fit, in 
 reviewing the decision of the chancellor, to go beyond the ac 
 customed line of its duty, in order to cast a stigma upon the just 
 position which had been asserted by him. The following is a 
 copy of the final judgment: " This court, not approving of the 
 chancellor s principles and reasoning in his decree made in 
 this cause, except so far as the same relates to white persons 
 
 * See, supra, page 37. 
 
 f The Honourable George Wythe, one of the signers of the Declaration of 
 our Independence. 
 
80 
 
 and native American Indians, BUT ENTIRELY DISAPPROVING 
 thereof, so far as the same relates to native Africans and 
 their descendants, who have been and now are held as slaves 
 by the citizens of this state; and discovering no other error in 
 the said decree, affirms the same." See the case, Hudgins 
 vs. Wright, 1 Henning $? Munford s Reports, 133 to 143. 
 In Maryland, a similar decision has been made, 3 Harris 8? 
 M Henry s Reports, 501-2, case of negro Mary vs. the Vestry 
 of William and Mary s Parish, 8?c.; so, in Kentucky, 2 Bibb s 
 Reports, 238, Davis vs. Curry; and, in New Jersey, 2 Hal- 
 sted s Reports, 253, Gibbons vs. Morse, (decided November, 
 1821.) 
 
 In North Carolina, this doctrine is received with some limi 
 tation, the presumption being confined to negroes of the whole 
 blood; while those of mixed blood, mulattoes, mestizoes, Sec. 
 are presumed free, until the contrary is proved. The report of 
 the case, in which this principle is recognised, is given in 1 Tay 
 lor s Reports, 1 64, Gobu vs. Gobu. The case itself is unique, 
 and on this account, as well as to display the sound reasoning 
 (as far as respects the mixed blood) of Chief Justice Taylor, 
 is transcribed at large. 
 
 (6 Gobu } m i f i 
 
 I Trespass and false imprisonment. 
 
 Gobu 3 P^ ea > tnat tne plaintiff is a slave, &c. 
 
 " It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff, when an infant 
 apparently about eight days old, was placed in a barn, by some 
 person unknown, and that the defendant, then a girl of about 
 twelve years of age, found him there and conveyed him home, 
 and had kept possession of him ever since, treating him with 
 humanity, but claiming him as her slave. The plaintiff was 
 of an olive colour, between black and yellow, had long hair 
 and prominent nose." These facts were ascertained by the 
 court, by proof and inspection; upon which the judge gave the 
 following charge: "I acquiesce in the rule laid down by the 
 defendant s counsel, with respect to the presumption of every 
 black person being a slave. It is so, because the negroes origi 
 nally brought into this country were slaves, and their descen 
 dants must continue slaves until manumitted by proper authority. 
 
81 
 
 If, therefore, a person of that description claims his freedom, 
 he must establish his right to it by such evidence as will destroy 
 the force of the presumption arising from colour. But I am not 
 aware, that the doctrine of presumption against liberty has been 
 urged, in relation to persons of mixed blood, or to those of any 
 colour between the two extremes of black and white, and I do 
 not think it reasonable that such a doctrine should receive 
 the least countenance: such persons may have descended from 
 Indians in both lines, or at least in the maternal; they may have 
 descended from a white person in the maternal line, or from 
 mulatto parents originally free; in all which cases, the offspring 
 following the condition of the mother, is entitled to freedom. 
 Considering how many probabilities there are in favour of the 
 liberty of these persons, they ought not to be deprived of it 
 upon mere presumption; more especially, as the right to hold 
 them in slavery, if it exists, is in most instances capable of being 
 satisfactorily proved. 7 * 
 
 While I freely subscribe to the soundness of the views of this 
 distinguished jurist, in relation to persons of mixed blood, I 
 cannot but dissent from the specious reasoning, by which it is 
 inferred, that every black person should be presumed to be a 
 slave. Slavery is an institution which all profess to disapprove. 
 It violates every man s sense of right: it is at variance with the 
 genius of our government. Its existence, therefore, in no case 
 ought to be presumed. But, more than this it is well known 
 that a large number of black persons is entirely free, even in 
 the slave-holding states the laws of our country recognise their 
 right to freedom, and the power of the government has been 
 wielded for their protection, as citizens, whenever a fit case has 
 been brought to public notice. With what propriety of reason 
 ing, then, can it be urged, that their colour should, in legal 
 contemplation, raise a presumption against their liberty. Even 
 those who think it desirable to perpetuate slavery who think 
 it no evil to degrade and brutify a being endowed by his Crea 
 tor with reason need apprehend no violation of their legal 
 
 * The doctrine of this case was afterwards confirmed, so that it may be con 
 sidered as the settled law of North Carolina. See 2 Haywood s Reports, 170. 
 
 11 
 
82 
 
 rights of property, by a contrary doctrine. What greater diffi 
 culty can exist, to satisfy the requisitions of the law, in regard 
 to the ownership of a slave, than obtains in regard to the own 
 ership of ordinary chattels. Will it be alleged, that fraud may 
 be perpetrated by transferring a freeman as a slave? But, is not 
 an intelligent creature, endowed with the faculty of speech, at 
 all times, capable of admonishing a purchaser, against such a 
 deception? and, when a communication of this nature is made, 
 ought it not to be heeded? 
 
 I am the more strenuous in opposition to this doctrine of pre 
 sumption against liberty, because it is obviously the fruitful 
 source of the abominable crime of man-stealing a crime which, 
 in all nations, seems to have been viewed with abhorrence, and 
 visited with severe penalties. The wretch who, by art or force, 
 is enabled to exhibit a person of African extraction " with a 
 colour not his own" in his custody, and within the limits of a 
 slave-holding state, is exempted from the necessity of making 
 any proof how he obtained him, or by what authority he claims 
 him as a slave. Inspection notifies to every beholder, that the 
 unhappy person said to be a slave, is presumed so to be, by the 
 law of the land! Supplemental evidence is unnecessary a 
 forged bill of sale may be a convenience to satisfy the timid 
 and over-cautious, but the law the supreme wisdom of man 
 deems any thing more than- colour quite superfluous. Is this 
 just? Does it become a free and enlightened people thus to de 
 cree thus to injure? 
 
 By the laws of several of the slave-holding states, manumit 
 ted and other free persons of colour, however respectable their 
 characters, may be arrested when in the prosecution of lawful 
 business, and if documentary evidence of their right to freedom 
 cannot be immediately produced by them, they are thrown into 
 prison, and advertised as runaway slaves. Should no owner, 
 as must always be the case, unless injustice is done, appear with 
 in a time limited by law for the purpose, the jailer is directed 
 to dispose of them, at public auction, as unclaimed fugitive 
 slaves, in order to derive from the proceeds of the sale, the 
 means of defraying the expenses of their detention in prison. 
 The unrighteous doctrine of presumption from colour, steps in 
 
83 
 
 and consummates the iniquity, and the freeman and his posterity 
 are doomed to hopeless bondage. See 2 Brevard s Digest, 
 235-6-7; Mississippi Rev. Code, 376-7; Laws of Maryland,* 
 
 * The laws of Maryland here referred to, having excited much attention, in 
 consequence of the arrest and imprisonment, in the District of Columbia, of a 
 free black man, a citizen of the state of New York, named Gilbert Morton, I 
 am induced to transcribe them in this place. The sixth section of the act of 
 1715, chap. 44, reads thus: " And for the better discovery of runaways, it is 
 hereby enacted, &c. that any person or persons whatsoever within this province, 
 travelling out of the county where he, she or they shall reside or live, without 
 a pass under the seal of the said county, for which they are to pay ten pounds 
 of tobacco, or one shilling in money, such person or persons, if apprehended, 
 not being sufficiently known or able to give a good account of themselves, it shall be 
 left to the discretion and judgment of such magistrate or magistrates before whom 
 such person or persons as aforesaid shall be brought, to judge thereof, and if, be 
 fore such magistrate, such person or persons so taken up, shall be deemed and 
 taken as a runaway, he, she or they, shall suffer such fines and penalties as are 
 hereby provided against run a ways." Section 7. "And for the better encourage 
 ment of all persons to seize and take up all runaways, &c. all and every such 
 person or persons as aforesaid, seizing or taking up such runaways, travelling 
 without passes as aforesaid, not being able to give a sufficient account of them 
 selves as aforesaid, shall have and receive two hundred pounds of tobacco," (by 
 act of 1806, chap. 81, 5, commuted for six dollars,) " to be paid by the 
 owner of such runaway servant, negro or slave, so apprehended and taken up; 
 and if such suspected runaway or runaways be not servants, and REFUSE TO PAY 
 THK SAME, he, she or they shall MAKE SATISFACTION BY SERVITUDE OR OTHER 
 WISE, as the justices of the provincial and county courts, where such person 
 shall be so apprehended and taken up, shall think fit." Section 9. " That at 
 what time soever, any of the said persons, runaways, shall be seized by any per 
 son or persons within this province, such person or persons so apprehending 
 or seizing the same, shall bring or cause him, her or them, to be brought be 
 fore the next magistrate or justice of the county where such runaway is appre 
 hended, who is hereby empowered to take into custody or otherwise, him, her or 
 them, to secure and dispose of, as he shall think fit, until such person or persons 
 so seized and apprehended, shall give good and sufficient security to answer 
 the premises the next court that shall first ensue in the said county, which 
 court shall secure such person or persons till he or they can make satisfaction 
 to the party that shall so apprehend or seize such runaways or other persons, as 
 by this act is required, except such person shall make satisfaction as aforesaid 
 before such court shall happen; and that notice may be conveniently given to 
 the master, mistress, dame or overseer of runaways taken up as aforesaid, the 
 commissioners of the counties shall forthwith cause a note of the runaway s 
 name, so seized and apprehended as aforesaid, to be set up at the next adjacent 
 county courts, and at the provincial court and secretary s office, that all per- 
 
84 
 
 act of 1715 (April session) chap. 44, (>,. 7 4 9 act of 1719 
 (May sessioji) chap. 2, 2 act of 1802 (November session) 
 ch. 96, 2. 
 
 sons may view the same, and see where sush their servants are, and in whose 
 custody." 
 
 The foregoing sections apply equally to the cases of all persons, whether 
 white or black, who may be found travelling without passes, out of the county 
 where their residences are; and all such, at the discretion of a magistrate, may be 
 subjected to imprisonment and amercement. But the last section of the same 
 act, while it bears, with a severity altogether at variance with the spirit of a 
 free government, upon whites unhappily circumstanced so as to come within 
 the terms of the previous enactments, introduces a provision by which they 
 may be restored to freedom, if entitled to be free; and yet negroes and mulat- 
 toes, with the same rights, are left without relief. " When any person or per 
 sons (except negroes and mulattoes} shall be found travelling without passes as 
 aforesaid, and shall be taken up as suspected runaways, and by any justice of 
 the peace committed to the custody of any sheriff or gaoler within this pro 
 vince, it shall not be lawful for any such sheriff or gaoler to hold such person 
 in custody longer than six mont/is; and if such person can, at any time within 
 the said six months, procure a certificate or other justification that he or she 
 is no servant, he or she shall and may, by order of any two justices of the 
 county where such person is committed to prison, be discharged from any fur 
 ther imprisonment, he or she serving such sheriff or gaoler or his assigns, so many 
 days as he, she or they were in custody of such sheriff or gaoler, or otherwise pay 
 ing ten pounds of tobacco per day to such sheriff or gaoler for THEIR IMPRISONMENT 
 FEES, and no more; and paying unto such person or persons who took up such 
 person two hundred pounds of tobacco, or serving him, her or them twenty days in lieu 
 thereof; and if any such sheriff or gaoler shall detain such person in prison after 
 such order of the justices aforesaid, or the expiration of six months, and payment 
 often pounds of tobacco per day as aforesaid, such sheriff or gaoler shall be 
 liable to an action of false imprisonment." Iniquitous as this law is, it is obvi 
 ous that the object of the legislature could not be reached by it. It offered, 
 indeed, a bounty to the sheriff or gaoler, who, by neglecting to give notice of 
 the imprisonment of a suspected runaway, might protract such imprisonment 
 till the value of his services, even though an absolute slave for life, would not 
 be equal to the gaol fees. And yet without some further legislation, the gaoler 
 himself would, in case the person detained was not a runaway, or if a runaway 
 should not be demanded by his master, be made to suffer the loss of such ex 
 pense as might be incurred for the sustenance of the suspected runaway during 
 his imprisonment. The lure held out by the act to the gaoler, probably produced 
 the abandonment of the slave in some instances Ijy the master; and it became 
 necessary, therefore, for the legislature to repeal the act, or to supply its defects. 
 The latter part of the disjunctive was naturally preferred; and, on the eighth 
 day of June, 1719, after reciting, that " Whereas by the act of assembly re- 
 
85 
 
 111. THE BENEFITS OF EDUCATION ARE WITHHELD FROM 
 THE SLAVE. 
 
 In no country is education more highly valued, or its benefits 
 
 lating 1 to servants and slaves, there is not any provision made what shall be done 
 with such runaway servants or slaves that now are or hereafter shall or may be 
 taken up and committed to the custody of any sheriff within this province, 
 where the master or owner of such servant or slave, having due notice of such 
 servant s or slave s being in the custody of such sheriff, refuses or delays to re 
 deem such servant or slave, by paying their imprisonment fees, and such other 
 charge as has or may accrue for taking up such servant or slave;" enacted, 
 " That, &c. every sheriff that now hath, or hereafter shall have, committed 
 into his custody, any runaway servants or slaves, after one month s notice given 
 to the master or owner thereof, of their being in his custody, if living in this 
 province, or two months notice if living in any of the neighbouring provinces, 
 if such master or owner of such servants or slaves do not appear within the 
 time limited as aforesaid, and pay or secure to be paid all such imprisonment 
 fees due to such sheriff from the time of the commitment of such servants or 
 slaves, and also such other charges as have accrued or become due to any per 
 son for taking up such runaway servants or slaves, such sheriff is hereby autho 
 rized and required (such time limited as aforesaid, being expired) immediately 
 to give public notice to all persons, by setting up notes at the church and 
 court-house doors of the county where such servant or slave is in custody, of 
 the time and place for sale of such servants or slaves, by him to be appointed, 
 not less than ten days after such time limited as aforesaid being expired, and at 
 such time and place by him appointed as aforesaid, to proceed to sell and dispose 
 of such servant or slave to the highest bidder, and out of the money or tobacco 
 which such servant or slave is sold for, to pay himself all such IMPRISONMENT 
 FEES as are his just due, for the time he has kept such servant or slave in his 
 custody, and also to pay such other charges, fees or reward as has become due 
 to any person for taking up such runaway servant or slave, and after such pay 
 ments made, if any residue shall remain of the money or tobacco such servant 
 or slave was sold for, such sheriff shall only be accountable to the master or 
 owner of such servant or slave for such residue or remainder as aforesaid, and 
 not otherwise." Laws of Maryland., act of 1719, (May session,} chap. 2. 
 
 Upon the enactment of this law, the most unprincipled sheriff should have been 
 content. It became, indeed, not only his interest, but the interest of all other 
 persons, to apprehend and to commit to prison coloured persons especially for 
 these might be detained for a longer period than six months, whether free or 
 not; the right of the taker up to his legal reward and other charges was secured 
 to him by a LIEN ON THE BODY OF THE PRISONER, and the sheriff or gaoler was 
 indemnified in the same manner against the loss of his imprisonment fees. And by 
 prolonging the imprisonment until the fees should be swelled to nearly the 
 value of the prisoner, if a slave, the master, in many instances, might be unable 
 or unwilling to redeem him, and the sheriff s sale, which in such case is autho- 
 
86 
 
 more generally diffused, than in the United States. The con 
 stitutions of nearly all the states, make it the duty of the respec- 
 
 rized, could easily be turned to the account of some favourite of that officer, 
 and eventually, by collusion, to his own pecuniary advantage. And should the 
 suspected runaway not be a slave, yet, in a land where, from his colour, he is 
 presumed to be so, and where others like him are daily " made merchandise 
 of," the facility with which his imprisonment, aided by the provisions of this 
 act, might be rendered profitable to the sheriff, would be greatly increased. 
 But whatever may have been the true cause, the prevalence of a practice 
 on the part of sheriffs, of prolonging the imprisonment of persons apprehended 
 as runaways, is evidenced by an act of assembly, passed the twenty -second 
 day of December, 1792, entitled " An ad to restrain the ill practices of sheriffs, 
 and to direct their conduct respecting runaways." The act sets forth, that 
 " Whereas it is represented to this general assembly, that the sheriffs of the re 
 spective counties have neglected to advertise runaways, to the great injury of the 
 owners; therefore, &,c. That it be the duty of the several sheriffs, See. upon 
 any runaway being committed to their custody, to cause the same to be adver 
 tised in some public newspaper within twenty days after such commitment, 
 and to make particular and minute description of the person, clothes and bodily 
 marks of such runaway." "And if no person shall apply for such runaway, 
 within the space of thirty days from such commitment, then it shall be the duty 
 of such sheriff, if residing on the Western Shore, to cause the runaway to be 
 advertised as heretofore directed, in the Maryland Journal and Georgetown 
 Weekly Leger; and, if residing on the Eastern Shore, to cause the same to be 
 advertised in the Maryland Herald and Maryland Journal, within sixty days 
 from such commitment, and to continue the same therein until the said runa 
 way is released by due course of law." Maryland s Laws of 1792, (November 
 session,} chap. 72. 
 
 In that part of the District of Columbia which was ceded by the state of 
 Maryland to the federal government, the whole of these laws are still in force. 
 Shortly after the date of the cession, however, the legislature of Maryland re 
 pealed the act c/1719, ch. 2, and the act of 1792, ch. 72, supplying their place 
 by the following regulations, which, as it will be perceived, are in principle 
 the same as the repealed acts. " That it shall be the duty of the sheriffs (re 
 spectively) of the several counties of this state, &c. upon any runaway servant 
 or slave being committed to his custody, to cause the same to be advertised in 
 some public newspaper or papers printed in the city of Baltimore, the city of 
 Washington, and the town of Easton, and in such other public manner as he 
 shall think proper, within fifteen days after such commitment, and to make par 
 ticular and minute description of the clothing, person and bodily marks of such 
 runaway. " " If the owner or owners, or some person in his, her or their behalf 
 shall not apply for such runaway within the space of sixty days from the time 
 of advertising as aforesaid, and pay or secure to be paid all such legal costs and 
 charges as have accrued by reason of apprehending, imprisoning and advertis 
 ing such servant or slave, it shall be the duty of such sheriff and he is hereby 
 
87 
 
 tive legislatures to establish and support seminaries for learning, 
 adequate to the wants of the citizens. Common schools are, 
 
 required and directed to proceed to sell such savant or slave, and immediately 
 to give public notice by advertisements^ to be set up at the court-house door 
 and such other public places as he shall think proper, in the county where 
 such servant or slave is in custody, of the time and place for sale of such servant 
 or slave, by him to be appointed, not less than twenty days after the tune limit 
 ed as aforesaid has expired, and at such time and place shall proceed to sell 
 and dispose of such servant or slave to the highest bidder." Laws of Maryland, 
 c/1802, (November session,) chap. 96, 1 fcf 2, (passed 8th of January, 1803.) 
 
 By recurring to the sections of the law of 1715, above transcribed, it will be 
 seen that magistrates were empowered to decide, in their discretion, whether 
 the person ap^r^KelioreiiTZ^aTuna^ay snouH be deemed such, and be accord 
 ingly committed to prison. Whether such power had been abused, or whether 
 a proper exercise of it, had been found inconvenient to takers-up and sheriffs, I 
 will not presume to conjecture, but, in 1810, (chap. 63, 1,) legislative inter 
 position was called into action in the following extraordinary measure : " Any 
 court or any judge or justice of this state, before whom any negro or mulatto 
 shall be brought as a runaway, shall be satisfied, by competent testimony, that 
 the said negro or mulatto is not a runaway, before it shall be lawful for the said 
 court, judge or justice to discharge the said negro or mulatto from the custody 
 of the person or persons detaining the said negro or mulatto as a runaway, 
 otherwise than by a commitment to the gaol of the county of which he is a 
 judge or justice." 
 
 The barbarous severity to coloured persons which pervades the whole of 
 the laws of Maryland on this subject, has at length been somewhat softened 
 by an act passed February third, 1818. It is in these words: "Hereafter, 
 when any servant or slave shall be committed to the gaol of any county in this 
 state, as a runaway, agreeably to the laws now in force, and the notice re 
 quired to be given by law by the sheriff shall have been given, and the time 
 for their detention expired, and no person or persons shall have applied for 
 and claimed said suspected runaway, and proved his, her or their title to such 
 suspected runaway, as is now required by law, it shall be the duty of the sheriff 
 forthwith to carry such slave or slaves before some judge of the county court or 
 judge of the orphans court, with his commitment, and such judge is hereby 
 required to examine and inquire, by such means as he may deem most advisable, 
 whether such suspected runaway be a slave or not, and if he shall have reason 
 able grounds to believe that such suspected runaway is a slave, he may remand 
 such suspected runaway to prison, to be confined for such further or additional 
 time as he may judge right and proper; and if he shall have reason to believe 
 that such suspected runaway is the slave of any particular person, he shall cause 
 such notice to be given by the sheriff to such supposed owner, as he may think 
 most advisable; but if said judge shall not have reasonable ground to believe such 
 suspected runaway to be a slave, he shall forthwith order such suspected runaway 
 to be released,- and if no person shall apply for such suspected runaway after 
 
88 
 
 also, provided " for the education of the poor gratis." In seve 
 ral, perhaps in all of the free states, no distinction is made in 
 the distribution of the public bounty towards this object, be 
 tween white and coloured children; but schools are constantly 
 maintained for the reception and instruction of poor children of 
 every class and complexion. 
 
 A different policy began very early in the slave-holding states. 
 In none of these do the laws interpose to afford any aid or faci 
 lity for the acquisition of learning to persons of colour, whether 
 slaves or freemen. On the contrary, the extracts which I shall 
 make from the laws of these latter states, will satisfactorily de 
 monstrate the truth of the proposition at the head of this section, 
 namely, that the benefits of education are withheld from the 
 slave and, I might add, from the free negro also. 
 
 South Carolina may lay claim to the earliest movement in 
 legislation on this subject. In 1740, while yet a province, she 
 enacted this law: " Whereas the having of slaves taught to 
 write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be at 
 tended with great inconveniences, Be it enacted, That all and 
 every person and persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach 
 or cause any slave or slaves to be taught to write, or shall use 
 or employ any slave as a scribe in any manner of writing what 
 soever hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons 
 shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred 
 pounds current money." 2 Brevard s Digest, 243; similar in 
 Georgia, by act of 1770, except as to the penalty, which is 
 twenty pounds sterling. Prince s Digest, 455. 
 
 Virginia has attained the same end, though in a less direct 
 manner. Her Revised Code of 1819, reiterates an enactment, 
 " That all meetings or assemblages of slaves or free negroes or 
 mulattoes mixing and associating with such slaves at any meet 
 ing house, or houses, or any other place, &c. in the night, or at 
 
 he may be so remanded, within the time for which he may be remanded, 
 and prove his, her or their title as the law now requires, the said sheriff shall, 
 at the expiration of such time, relieve and discharge such suspected runaway; and 
 in either case, when such suspected runaway shall be discharged, the expense of 
 keeping such runaway in confinement shall be levied on the county, as other county 
 expenses are now levied" Laws of Maryland, December session of 1817, chap. 
 112, 6. 
 
89 
 
 any school or schools for teaching them reading or writing 
 either in the day or night, under whatsoever pretext, shall be 
 deemed and considered an unlawful assembly; and any justice 
 of a county, &c. wherein such assemblage shall be, either from 
 his own knowledge or the information of others, of such unlaw 
 ful assemblage, &c. may issue his warrant directed to any sworn 
 officer or officers, authorizing him or them to enter the house or 
 houses where such unlawful assemblages, &c. may be, for the 
 purpose of apprehending or dispersing such slaves, and to inflict 
 corporal punishment on the offender or offenders at the discre 
 tion of any justice of the peace, not exceeding twenty lashes." 
 
 1 Rev. Code, 424-5. 
 
 So in South Carolina, in addition to the highly penal restraint 
 upon the education of a slave, contained in the law already cited, 
 an act of assembly was passed in 1800, enacting, " That assem 
 blies of slaves, free negroes, mulattoes and mestizoes, whether 
 composed of all or any of such description of persons, or of all 
 or any of the same and of a proportion of white persons, met 
 together for the purpose of mental instruction in a confined or 
 secret place, &c. &c. is (are) declared to be an unlawful meeting, 
 and magistrates, &c. &c. are hereby required, &c. to enter into 
 such confined places, &c. &c. to break doors, &c. if resisted, and 
 to disperse such slaves, free negroes, &c. &c. and the officers 
 dispersing such unlawful assemblage, may inflict such corporal 
 punishment, not exceeding twenty lashes, upon such slaves, 
 free negroes, S^c. as they may judge necessary for DETERRING 
 
 THEM FROM THE LIKE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE IN FUTURE." 
 
 2 Brevard s Digest, 254. And another section of the same act 
 declares, "That it shall not be lawful for any number of slaves, 
 free negroes, mulattoes or mestizoes, even in company with 
 white persons, to meet together for the purpose of mental in 
 struction, either before the rising of the sun or after the going 
 down of the same." 2 JBrevard s Digest, 254-5. 
 
 But besides acts of assembly, which in general apply to 
 the whole territory of the particular state, many of the towns 
 and cities are invested with authority to make ordinances which 
 have the force of law within their respective corporate limits. 
 These ordinances seldom meet the eye of the inhabitants of other 
 
 12 
 
90 
 
 states; I find, however, in the Port Folio for Jlpril, 1818, 
 page 325, a brief notice of one, having relation to the subject in 
 hand, adopted by the councils of the city of Savannah, in Georgia. 
 Probably the editor of the Port Folio copied the language of a 
 Savannah paper, and I shall therefore transfer it without altera 
 tion. " The city has passed an ordinance, by which any person 
 that teaches any person of colour, slaveorfree, toreador write, 
 or causes such persons to be so taught, is subjected to a fine of 
 thirty dollars for each offence; and every person of colour who 
 shall keep a school to teach reading or writing is subject to a fine 
 of thirty dollars, or to be imprisoned ten days and whipped 
 thirty-nine lashes!!!" This ordinance, it will be perceived, 
 extends its prohibitions beyond the law of the state, inasmuch 
 as it places under the ban, reading as well as writing, and em 
 braces not the case of the slave merely, but also that of the free. 
 negro. 
 
 With such legislative obstacles to his mental improvement, it 
 ought to excite no surprise, if a slave having the ability to read 
 or write, could not be found within a slave-holding state. But 
 apart from these obstacles of law, the condition of slavery is 
 such, that a slave capable of reading, must be, in most of the 
 states, a prodigy indeed. His life is ordinarily passed in inces 
 sant toil. The laws, as I have already shown, secure to him no 
 portion of time in which he may employ himself at his pleasure. 
 He is awaked from his slumbers, at the call of his master, often 
 before the dawn of day he continues his heartless labour, with 
 but slight intermissions for rest and food, till night has closed 
 around him. Hard-worked, and scantily fed, his bodily ener 
 gies are exhausted without an instructer and without books, 
 (for he has not the means to procure them,) he must of neces 
 sity remain for ever ignorant of the benefits of education. 
 
 IV. THE MEANS FOR MORAL AND RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION 
 ARE NOT GRANTED TO THE SLAVE ; ON THE CONTRARY, THE 
 EFFORTS OF THE HUMANE AND CHARITABLE TO SUPPLY THESE 
 WANTS ARE DISCOUNTENANCED BY LAW. 
 
 One of the plain dictates of the Christian religion, is a regard 
 for the well-being of our fellow creatures. It is, indeed, largely 
 
91 
 
 insisted upon as a duty, both in the Old and New Testament. 
 No believer in the Christian religion can doubt, that, the know 
 ledge of its precepts and promises will promote the happiness 
 both here and hereafter of every accountable creature; nor will 
 such a one deny, that a negro, though a slave, is a member of 
 the human family is endowed with reason has a soul which 
 is immortal, and must be deemed accountable unto GOD, " for 
 the deeds done in the body." How can such a belief be reconciled 
 with a practice which forbids to the slave access to the gospel ; 
 which, as far as the master s power, so to do, extends, shuts 
 out from him the knowledge of the means of his salvation. 
 
 It has been shown, in the last chapter, that one of the means I 
 to which allusion is here made, namely, mental instruction, is 
 in general entirely withheld from the slave. He cannot be ex 
 pected, therefore, to learn the scriptures, except as an auditor. 
 And yet in none of the slave-holding states are any facilities 
 afforded for this purpose. No time is secured to the slave by 
 law; no place provided where he can assemble with his fellows 
 to hear " the glad tidings of salvation" preached. 
 
 It is idle to talk of accompanying his master to church 
 such a spectacle, I apprehend, is rarely exhibited, except for the 
 special convenience of the master. The paucity of places for 
 worship, in the slave-holding states, compared with the number 
 of white inhabitants, prevents the exercise of this privilege to 
 an extent, at all commensurate with the religious wants of the 
 slaves. 
 
 Besides, if no other impediment existed, the rude mind of the 
 slave could not comprehend a discourse designed for the refined 
 taste and enlarged capacity of the master. Christianity demands 
 that these unfortunate beings should be taught to read that build 
 ings should be erected for their assembling together to worship 
 their Creator that teachers who are willing and qualified to ad 
 minister to their spiritual necessities, should be encouraged to 
 dedicate their time and their talents to the pious service that 
 rest should be allowed to the slave at the seasons usually allotted 
 among Christians for religious worship, and especially that laws 
 should be made and enforced to prevent the exaction of labour 
 
92 
 
 from the slave to such a degree, that his senses are overpowered 
 by sleep, the moment his body ceases to be active.* 
 
 If the practice of the slave-holding states is in accordance 
 with the laws, the reverse of this picture will, it is believed, be 
 found true in most respects. In a law enacted by the state of 
 Georgia, December 13, 1792, with the title "To protect reli 
 gious societies in the exercise of their religious duties," it is re 
 quired of every justice of the peace, &c. and every civil officer 
 of a county being present, &c. &c. to take into custody any per 
 son who shall interrupt or disturb a congregation of white per 
 sons assembled at any church, &c. and to impose a fine on the 
 offender, and in default of payment, he may be imprisoned, &c. 
 &c. ; yet the same laiv concludes in these words " no congre 
 gation or company of negroes shall, under pretence of divine 
 worship, assemble themselves contrary to the act regulating pa 
 trols." Prince s Digest, 342. I have not been able to discover 
 the law here referred to as the act regulating patrols, but the 
 editor of the Digest, whom I presume to be fully competent 
 to resolve the difficulty, quotes the seventh section of an act 
 passed May 10, 1770, "for ordering and governing slaves, 
 &c." as that intended to be designated by the legislature. This 
 section begins with a recital, " Whereas the frequent meeting, 
 &c. of slaves under the pretence of feasting may be attended 
 with dangerous consequences," and proceeds to enact, "That 
 it shall be lawful for every justice of the peace, &c. upon his 
 own knowledge or information received, either to go in person, 
 
 * Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, speaking 1 of slaves, makes the fol 
 lowing remarks: " In general, their existence appears to participate more of 
 sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep 
 when abstracted from their diversions and unemployed in labour. An animal 
 whose body is at rest and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of 
 course." See Answer to Query 14. I do not dissent from this doctrine. It is 
 philosophically true. But with the accurate knowledge which Mr. Jefferson 
 possessed as to the actual condition of the slave, it seems strange, that he 
 should have omitted to include as a reason why the slave, when " abstracted 
 from his diversions and unemployed in labour," should be disposed to sleep, 
 the fatigue induced by the severity of his labour. The disposition to sleep 
 which is thus indicated as characteristic of the black, is equally observable, as 
 far as I am able to ascertain, among the labouring class of whites. 
 
93 
 
 or by warrant, &c. directed to any constable, &c. to command 
 to their assistance any number of persons as (ivhicti) they shall 
 see convenient, to disperse ANY assembly or meeting of slaves 
 which may disturb the peace or endanger the safety of his ma 
 jesty s subjects, and every slave which shall be found and taken 
 at such meeting as aforesaid, shall and may by order of such 
 justice, immediately be corrected WITHOUT TRIAL, by receiving 
 on the bare back twenty -Jive stripes with a whip, switch or cow- 
 skin"* &c. Prince s Digest, 447. The terms of this prohibition 
 in relation to the meeting of slaves for divine worship, are, it 
 must be admitted, not a little enigmatical; yet, with the aid of 
 the twenty-five lashes of the cowskin, the most stupid negro 
 will be rendered apt enough to comprehend their meaning. 
 
 In South Carolina, by a section already in part extracted, a 
 prohibition though not absolute in its terms, yet in effect, 1 
 suspect, it must have been nearly so, was made in 1800. The 
 section reads thus: " It shall not be lawful for any number of 
 slaves, free negroes, mulattoes or mestizoes, even in company 
 with white persons, to meet together and assemble for the pur 
 pose of mental instruction or religious worship, either before 
 the rising of the sun or after the going down of the same. And 
 all magistrates, sheriffs, militia officers, &c. &c. are hereby 
 vested with power, &c. for dispersing such assemblies," &c. 
 2 Brevard s Digest, 254-5. Three years afterwards, upon the 
 petition, as the act recites, of certain religious societies, the 
 rigour of the act of 1800 was slightly abated by a modification, 
 which forbids any person, before nine o clock in the evening, 
 " to break into a place of meeting, wherein shall be assembled 
 the members of any religious society of this state, provided a 
 majority of them shall be white persons, or otherwise to dis- 
 
 * And while in Georgia slaves are thus discouraged from assembling- together 
 for the purpose of divine worship, the same state, in a spirit which I by no 
 means condemn, has adopted the following as a standing rule for the govern 
 ment of the penitentiary. " It shall be the duty of the keeper, &c. to furnish 
 them (i. e. the convicts) with such moral and religious books as shall be recom 
 mended by the inspectors to procure the performance of divine service on 
 Sundays, as often as may be." See rule ISthfar the internal government of the 
 penitentiary of Georgia. Prince s Digest, 386-7. 
 
94 
 
 turb their devotion, unless such person, &e. so entering the said 
 place (of worship) shall have first obtained from some magistrate 
 appointed to keep the peace, &c. a warrant, &c. in case a magis 
 trate shall be then actually within the distance of three miles 
 from such place of meeting, otherwise the provisions, &c. (of the 
 act of 1800, above cited) to remain in full force." 2 Brevard s 
 Digest, 261. If this latter act yields to the slave a privilege 
 in assembling for divine worship beyond what he possessed be 
 fore, it must consist, it appears to me, chiefly in preventing in 
 terruptions by persons, who, acting from a sense of official 
 obligation, might deem themselves compelled, by the provisions 
 of the former act, to hunt out and disperse the congregations of 
 negro worshippers wherever they might be found. For it must 
 happen, 1 apprehend, very frequently, that the quorum of white 
 persons cannot, with much certainty, be depended upon. 
 And, in such case, the poor slave, disappointed in his expecta 
 tions of the quorum, will be at once subjected to the terrible 
 penalty of the twenty-five lashes of the cowskin on his bare 
 back, well laid on ! ! 
 
 In Virginia, it will be remembered, that " all meetings, &c. 
 of slaves, free negroes and mulattoes mixing, &c. with such 
 slaves at any meeting house, &c. or any other place, &c. in 
 the night, under any pretext whatsoever, are declared to be un 
 lawful assemblies, and the civil power may disperse the same, 
 and inflict corporal punishment on the offenders." Slaves may, 
 however, attend at church on any day of public worship. 
 
 Mississippi has adopted the law of Virginia, with a proviso, 
 that the master or overseer of a slave may, in writing, grant 
 him permission to attend a place of religious worship, at which 
 the minister may be white and regularly ordained or licensed, 
 or, at least, two discreet and reputable white persons appointed 
 by some regular church or religious society, shall attend. Mis 
 sissippi Rev. Code, 390. 
 
 An opinion seems, at one period, to have obtained in many 
 of the states, that by consenting to the baptism of his slave, 
 the master virtually enfranchised him. To remove the pretext 
 which was thus furnished, for withholding the administration 
 of a rite so commonly practised among Christians, the following 
 
95 
 
 brief section was enacted in Maryland. " Forasmuch as many 
 people have neglected to baptize their negroes, or suffer them 
 to be baptized, on a vain apprehension that negroes by receiv 
 ing the sacrament of baptism, are manumitted and set free, 
 Be it enacted, fyc. That no negro or negroes, by receiving 
 the holy sacrament of baptism, is thereby manumitted or set 
 free, nor hath any right or title to freedom or manumission, 
 more than he or they had before, any law, usage or custom to 
 the contrary notwithstanding. JLct of 1715, chap. 44, 23. 
 So in the year 1711, the legislature of South Carolina, deemed 
 a similar act necessary. " Since," according to the language 
 of the preamble, " charity and the Christian religion which we 
 profess, oblige us to wish well to the souls of all men; and that 
 religion may not be made a pretence to alter any man s proper 
 ty and right, and that no persons may neglect to baptize their 
 negroes or slaves, or suffer them to be baptized, for fear that 
 thereby they should be manumitted and set free, Be it, 8?c. 
 enacted. That it shall be, and is hereby declared lawful, for 
 any negro, or Indian slave, or any other slave or slaves what 
 soever, to receive and profess the Christian religion, and be 
 thereunto baptized." 2 Brevard s Digest, 229. The section 
 then provides, that such profession of religion and submission 
 to baptism, shall not be construed to effect an emancipation of 
 any slave, &c.* 
 
 * The doubts which gave rise to these laws of Maryland, and South Caro 
 lina, probably originated in two judicial investigations which had occurred in 
 England, a short time previously. The first of these, is reported in 3 Mo 
 dem Reports, 120-1. (A. D. 1686-7) and is there thus stated: " Sir Thomas 
 Grantham bought a monster in the Indies, which was a man of that country, 
 who had the perfect shape of a child growing out of his breast, as an excres- 
 cency, all but the head. This man he brought hither, (i. e. to England) and 
 exposed to the sight of the people for profit. The Indian turns Christian 
 and was baptized, and was detained from his master, who brought a liomine 
 replegiando, (i. e. a writ by which his title to retain the man as property might 
 l)e legally tested.) The sheriff returned, that he had replevied the body, 
 &c.: And then the Court of Common Pleas, BAILED HIM." How the case was 
 ultimately disposed of, does not appear, but the proceeding even thus far, was 
 calculated to excite a fear, lest the profession of Christianity and the admi 
 nistration of baptism, might be decided to entitle the slave to the privileges 
 of a free man. 
 
96 
 
 I know of no exception to the general bearing of the forego 
 ing laws and observations, unless the following concise enact 
 ment of the legislature of Louisiana, may be thought to form 
 one. "It shall be the duty of every owner, to procure to his 
 sick slaves, all kinds of temporal and spiritual assistance which 
 their situation may require." I Martin s Digest, 610. Giv 
 ing to this provision, the most favourable interpretation, it is 
 but a kind of death-bed charity. 
 
 V. SUBMISSION is REQUIRED OF THE SLAVE NOT TO THE 
 
 In 1696, The question, whether the baptism of a negro slave, WITHOUT THE 
 PRIVITT OB CONSENT OF HIS MASTER, emancipated the slave, underwent an 
 elaborate discussion, before the judges of the King s Bench. Owing to a 
 misconception of the form of the action, a final decision was not given, and 
 the plaintiff, being, of course, unsuccessful on that occasion, the doubts 
 which had resulted from the former case, were strengthened rather than im 
 paired. 
 
 The arguments of the counsel for the defendant, are sufficiently curious to 
 deserve transcription: "Being baptized, according to the use of the church, 
 he (the slave) is thereby made a Christian, and Christianity is inconsistent 
 with slavery. And this was allowed even in the time when the Popish reli 
 gion was established, as appears by Littleton, for in those days, if a villain, 
 had entered into religion, and was professed, as they called it, the lord could 
 not seize him? and the reason there given is, because he was dead in law, and 
 if the lord might take him out of his cloister, then he could not live accord 
 ing to his religion. The like reason may now be given for baptism, being in 
 corporated into the laws of the land; if the duties which arise thereby cannot 
 be performed in a state of servitude, the baptism must be a manumission. 
 That such duties cannot be performed, is plain, for the persons baptized are 
 to be confirmed by the diocesan, when they can give an account of their 
 faith, and are enjoined by several acts of parliament, to come to church. But 
 if the lord hath still an absolute property over him, then he might send him 
 far enough from the performance of those duties, viz. into Turkey, or any 
 other country of infidels, where they neither can or will be suffered to exer 
 cise the Christian religion." In conclusion, the counsel remarks, "It is ob 
 served among the Turks, that they do not make slaves of those of their own 
 religion, though taken in war; and if a Christian be so taken, yet if he renounce 
 Christianity and turn Mahometan, he doth thereby obtain his freedom. And if 
 this be a custom, allowed among infidels, then baptism, in a Christian nation, 
 as this is, should be an immediate enfranchisement to them, as they should 
 thereby acquire the privileges and immunities enjoyed by those of the same 
 religion, and be entitled to the laws of England." See 5 Modern Repotis, 190- 
 1. Chamberline vs. Hervey, 
 
97 
 
 WILL OP HIS MASTER ONLY, BUT TO THE WILL OF ALL OTHER 
 WHITE PERSONS. 
 
 While the institution of slavery exists, every thing like re 
 sistance 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 slave-holding 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 keep 
 ing that the slave having the physical ability to avoid the in 
 fliction of a barbarous and vindictive punishment by his master, 
 shall not be permitted to do so. They go indeed, even beyond 
 this they place the slave under the like restriction, in relation 
 to every white person, without discrimination as to character, and 
 with but little consideration as to motives. Thus it is enacted 
 in Georgia "If any slave shall presume to strike any white 
 person, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice 
 or justices, according to the directions of this act, shall for the 
 first offence, suffer such punishment as the said justice or jus 
 tices shall, in his or their discretion think fit, not extending to 
 life or limb; and for the second offence, suffer DEATH." 
 Prince s Digest, 450. The law of South Carolina, 2 Bre- 
 vard s Digest, 235, is in the same words, except that death 
 is not made the punishment of the second, but of the third 
 offence. In both of these states, a proviso is annexed to this 
 law, which shows plainly, that however wanton, or dangerous 
 may be the attack upon the slave, he is still compelled to sub 
 mit. " Provided always, that such striking, &c., be not done 
 by the command, and in the defence of the person or property 
 of the OWNER, OR OTHER PERSON having the care and govern 
 ment of such slave, in which case, the slave shall be wholly ex 
 cused, and the owner or other person, &c., shall be answerable 
 as if the act had been committed by himself." 
 
 In Maryland, act of 1723, chap. xv. 4, a justice of the 
 peace, for this offence, may direct the offender s ears to be 
 cropt and this, though he be a free black. In Kentucky, the 
 same general principle is recognized, though enforced by penal 
 ties much less severe; yet there, as in Maryland, free coloured 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 persons are included. " If any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond 
 or free, shall at any time, lift his or her hand, in opposition to 
 any person, not being a negro, mulatto, or Indian, he or she 
 so offending, shall for every such offence, proved by the oath 
 of the party, before a justice of the peace of the county where 
 such offence shall be committed, receive thirty lashes on his or 
 her bare back, well laid on, by order of such justice." 2 
 Lift, and Swi. Digest, 1153. Nearly similar to this law of 
 Kentucky, was that of Virginia, from the year 1680, to the 
 year 1792, at which latter date, the following exception was 
 added, " except in those cases where it shall appear to such 
 justice, that such negro or mulatto, was wantonly assaulted, 
 and lifted his or her hand in his or her defence." 1 Rev. Code, 
 426-7. 
 
 There is a section of a law in Louisiana, which, though in 
 terms, applying to free persons of colour only, may be pro 
 perly cited to evidence the sentiments which are entertain 
 ed there on this subject. The gravity with which the 
 strange principle it asserts, is declared, will of itself, ex 
 cuse its introduction here, though not altogether congruous 
 with the main object of this sketch. "Free people of colour 
 ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to 
 conceive themselves equal to the whites; but on the contrary, 
 they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and never speak 
 or answer them, but with respect, under the penalty of impri 
 sonment, according to the nature of the offence." 1 Martin s 
 Digest, 640-42. 
 
 My chief objection to these laws, is, that they furnish a 
 pretext, and may I not say, an inducement to an ignoble 
 mind, to oppress and to tyrannise over the defenceless slave. 
 He must patiently endure every species of personal injury, 
 which a white person, however brutal and ferocious his dispo 
 sition, be he a drunkard, or even a maniac, may choose to 
 offer. 
 
 Several of the slave-holding states have adopted laws, 
 which are highly objectionable for the reason just given. 
 The subjoined may be taken as a specimen: "If any slave 
 ehall happen to be slain for refusing to surrender him or herself, 
 
99 
 
 contrary to law, or in unlawful resisting any officer or other 
 person, who shall apprehend or endeavour to apprehend, such 
 slave or slaves, &c. , such officer or other person so killing 
 such slave as aforesaid, making resistance, shall be, and he is 
 by this act, indemnified from any prosecutiou for such killing 
 aforesaid, &c." Maryland Laws, act 0/1751, chap.-xiv. 9. 
 And by the negro act of 1740, of South Carolina, it is de 
 clared, "if any slave, who shall be out of the house or planta 
 tion where such slave shall live, or shall be usually employed, 
 or without some white person in company with such slave, shall 
 refuse to submit to undergo the examination of any white per 
 son, it shall be lawful for any such white person to pursue, ap 
 prehend and moderately correct such slave; and if such slave 
 shall assault and strike such white person, such slave may be 
 lawfully killed!!" 2 Brevard s Digest, 231. 
 
 VI. THE PENAL CODES OF THE SLAVE-HOLDING STATES BEAR 
 MUCH MORE SEVERELY UPON SLAVES, THAN UPON WHITE PER 
 SONS. 
 
 A being, ignorant of letters, unenlightened by religion, and 
 deriving but little instruction from good example, cannot be 
 supposed to have right conceptions as to the nature and extent 
 of moral or political obligations. This remark with but a slight 
 qualification, is applicable to the condition of the slave. It has 
 been just shown, that the benefits of education are not confer 
 red upon him, while his chance of acquiring a knowledge of 
 the precepts of the gospel is so remote, as scarcely to be ap 
 preciated. He may be regarded, therefore, as almost without 
 the capacity to comprehend the force of laws, and, on this ac 
 count, such as are designed for his government should be re 
 commended by their simplicity and mildness. 
 
 His condition suggests another motive for tenderness on his 
 behalf in these particulars. He is unable to read, and holding 
 little or no communication with those who are better informed 
 than himself; how is he to become acquainted with the fact, 
 that a law for his observance has been made. To exact obedi 
 ence to a law which has not been promulgated, which is un 
 known to the subject of it has ever been deemed, most unjust 
 
100 
 
 and tyrannical. The reign of Caligula, were it obnoxious to 
 no other reproach than this, would never cease to be remember 
 ed with abhorrence. 
 
 The lawgivers of the slave-holding states, seem, in the for 
 mation of their penal codes, to have been uninfluenced by these 
 claims of the slave, upon their compassionate consideration. 
 The hardened convict moves their sympathy, and is to be 
 taught the laws before he is expected to obey them;* yet, the 
 guiltless slave, is SUBJECTED TO AN EXTENSIVE SYSTEM OP 
 
 CRUEL ENACTMENTS, OF NO PART OP WHICH, PROBABLY, HAS 
 HE EVER HEARD. 
 
 Parts of this system apply to the slave exclusively, and for 
 every infraction a large retribution is demanded while with 
 respect to offences for which whites as well as slaves, are ame 
 nable, punishments of much greater severity are inflicted 
 upon the latter than upon the former. 
 
 With very few exceptions, the penal laws, to which slaves 
 only are subject, relate not to violations of the moral or divine 
 laws; positive institution, is their only sanction. Thus, if a 
 slave is found beyond the limits of the town in which he lives, 
 or off the plantation where he is usually employed, without the 
 company of a white person, or without the written permission 
 of his master, employer, &c. , any person may apprehend him 
 and punish him, with whipping on the bare back, not exceed 
 ing twenty lashes." 2 Brevard s Dig. 231. Prince s Dig. 447. 
 In Mississippi, a similar punishment, by direction of a justice 
 of the peace. Mississippi Rev. Code, 371. So, also, in Virgi 
 nia, and Kentucky, at the discretion of the justice, both as to 
 the imposition of the punishment, and the number of stripes. 
 1 Virg. Rev. Code, 422. 2 Litt. and Swi. Dig. 1150, and 
 see 2 Missouri Laws, 741, 2, and ibid, 614. 
 
 * " It shall be the duty of the keeper (i. e. of the Penitentiary, ) on the re 
 ceipt of each prisoner, to read to him or her, such parts of the penal laws of 
 this state, as impose penalties for escape, and to make all the prisoners in the 
 penitentiary acquainted with the same. It shall also be his duty, on the dis 
 charge of such prisoner, to read to him or her, such parts of the said laws as im 
 pose additional punishments for the repetition of offences." Rule 12th, for the 
 internal government of the Penitentiary of Georgia sec. xxvi. of the Penitenti 
 ary act of 1816. Prince s Digest, 386. 
 
101 
 
 And if a slave shall be out of the house, &c. or off the plan 
 tation, &c. of his master, &c. without some white person in 
 company, &c. and shall refuse to submit to an examination of 
 any white person, 8?c., such white person may apprehend and 
 moderately correct him, and if he shall assault and strike such 
 white person, he may be lawfully killed. 2 Brev. Dig. 231. 
 Prince s Dig. 447, 5, act of 1770, and page 348, No. 43, 
 title, Penal laws. 
 
 If a slave shall presume to come upon the plantation of any 
 person, without leave in writing from his master, employer, &c. 
 not being sent on lawful business, the owner of the plantation 
 may inflict ten lashes for every such offence. 1 Virg. Rev. 
 Code, 422-3. Mississippi Rev. Code, 371. 2 Lift, and Sivi. 
 Dig. 1150. 2 Missouri Laws, 741, 3. and see Maryland 
 laws, act of 1723. chap. 15, 1 and 5. 
 
 It shall be lawful for any person who shall see more than 
 seven men slaves, without some white person with them, tra 
 velling or assembled together, in any high road, to apprehend 
 such slaves, and to inflict a whipping, on each of them, not 
 exceeding twenty lashes a piece.* 2 Brev. Dig. 243. Prince s 
 Dig. 454. In Delaware, more than six men slaves meeting 
 
 * It is with extreme regret, I have been apprized by the newspapers, that 
 tills law has been recently introduced into the Floridas, by our territorial gov 
 ernment there. The humanity which the Spaniards manifest towards their 
 slaves, rendered such a measure unnecessary during- the many years in which 
 these provinces were under their dominion. Scarcely is the power of our re 
 public recognized there by the free, when a more galling oppression pro 
 claims its existence to the slave. Well, indeed, might even the inhabitant 
 of our slave-holding states, blush with shame, when a sense of justice wrung 
 from him the humbling confession which he thus recorded: "The indulgent 
 treatment of their slaves, by which the Spaniards are so honourably distin 
 guished, and the ample and humane code of laws which they have enacted, 
 and also enforce, for the protection of the blacks, both bond and free, occa 
 sioned many of the Indian slaves (i. e. of East Florida,) who were apprehen 
 sive of falling into the power of the Americans, (i. e. citizens of the United 
 States,) and also most of the free people of colour who resided in St. Augus 
 tine, to transport themselves to Havanna, as soon as they heard of the approach 
 of the American authorities." See " Notices of East Florida, with an account 
 of the Seminole nation of Indians, by a recent traveller in the Province," page 
 42. From the tenor of many of his remarks, the writer is evidently an inha 
 bitant of one of our slave-holding states. 
 
. ., . 
 
 102 
 
 together, not belonging to one master, unless on lawful busi 
 ness of their owners, may be whipped to the extent of twenty- 
 one lashes, each. Delaware Laws, 104. 
 
 If a slave or Indian shall take away or let loose, any boat or 
 canoe from a landing or other place where the owner may have 
 made the same fast, for the first offence he shall receive thirty- 
 nine lashes on the bare back, and for the second offence shall 
 forfeit and have cut off from his head ONE EAR.* 2 Brev. Dig. 
 228. So, as to the first offence, in North Carolina and Ten 
 nessee. Haywood s Manual, 78, act 0/1741, chap. 13. 
 
 For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or shot, or a club, 
 or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive, a slave in 
 curs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice 
 of the peace. 2 Lift. 4* Swi. 1150; 1 Virg. Rev. Code, 423; 
 2 Missouri Laws, 741, 4; and in North Carolina and Tennes 
 see, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a convic 
 tion by the justice. Haywood s Manual, 521. 
 
 For having any article of property for sale, without a ticket 
 of permission from his master, particularly specifying the 
 same, and authorizing it to be sold by the slave, ten lashes, by 
 order of the captain of the patrol/ers, 2 Litt. 8? Swi. 981; and 
 if the slave be taken before a magistrate, thirty-nine lashes may 
 be ordered. Ibid. So, in North Carolina and Tennessee, Hay- 
 wood s Manual, 529; and see Mississippi Rev. Code, 390. 
 
 A slave being at an unlawful assembly, ,t the captain of pa- 
 
 * To take away a canoe, &c. for the temporary accommodation of the taker, 
 with the intention of returning 1 it again in a few minutes, is a very common 
 practice in countries, (such as South Carolina was, at the date of this law, i. e. 
 1695-6,) where, from the paucity or poverty of the inhabitants, few bridges 
 have been erected. The offence, however, of the poor slave or Indian would 
 be consummated even though the owner should not make the discovery, and 
 of course suffer no inconvenience, till after the canoe, &c. had been returned. 
 
 f The augmentation of crimes, under the name of unlawful assemblies, is a 
 favourite measure of despotic governments for the suppression of liberal prin 
 ciples. In this country, the experiment has never been tried by statutory pro 
 visions, except in reference to the black population. The reader will recol 
 lect, that in the chapter treating of education and religious privileges, several 
 acts of the slave-holding states were given, in which these unlawful assemblies 
 were spoken of. A complete enumeration of the crimes thus created (for all 
 
103 
 
 trailers may inflict ten lashes upon him. 2 Litt. fy Swi. 981; 2 
 Missouri Laws, 741, 2, and ibid, 614. If taken before a 
 magistrate, he may direct thirty-nine lashes. 2 Litt. Sf Swi. 
 981. 
 
 For travelling by himself from his master s land to any other 
 place, unless by the most usual and accustomed road, the owner 
 of the land on which such slave may be found is authorized to 
 inflict forty lashes upon him. Haywood s Manual, 518, (act of 
 1729.) For travelling in the night, without a pass, forty lashes, 
 ibid ; or being found in another person s negro quarters or kitch 
 en, forty lashes, ibid; and every negro in whose company suck 
 vagrant slave shall be found, incurs also twenty lashes. Ibid. 
 
 Any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been outlawed* 
 for running away and lurking in swamps, &c. &c. Haywood s 
 Manual, 521-2, (act of 1741.) 
 
 For hunting with dogs, in the woods even of his master, the 
 slave is subjected to a whipping of thirty lashes. Haywood s 
 Manual, 524, (act of 1753.) 
 
 A slave endeavouring} to entice another slave to run away, 
 
 of which slaves are severely punished) would swell this branch of the subject 
 beyond its appropriate limits. 
 
 * Such was once the law of Virginia also. "In 1705, two justices of the 
 peace were authorized, by proclamation to outlaw runaways, who might there 
 after be killed and destroyed by any person whatsoever, by such ways and 
 means as he mig-ht think fit, without accusation or impeachment of any crime 
 for so doing 1 ." Speaking- of this law and some others of a kindred nature, 
 Judge Tucker, professor of law in the university of William and Mary, Virgi 
 nia, observes " Such are the cruelties to which a state of slavery gives birth; 
 such the horrors to which the human mind is capable of being reconciled by 
 its adoption." And, again, says the same respectable writer " In 1772 some 
 restraints were laid upon the practice of outlawing slaves ; requiring that it 
 should appear to the satisfaction of the justices, that the slaves were out-lying 
 and doing mischief. These loose expressions of the act left too much in the discre 
 tion of men not much addicted to weighing their import. In 1792, every thing 
 relative to the outlawry of slaves was expunged from our code, and I trust will 
 never again find a place in it" See Appendix to Slackstone s Commentaries, second 
 part, page 56-7. How long will it be before such sentiments prevail in North 
 Carolina? 
 
 f The original section creating this crime was in these words: " Every slave 
 who shall endeavour to delude or entice any slave to run away and leave this 
 province, every such slave and slaves, and his and their accomplices, aiders and 
 
104 
 
 if provisions, &c. be prepared for the purpose of aiding in such 
 running away, shall be punished with DEATH. 2 Brevard s 
 Digest, 233 fy 244. And, a slave who shall aid and abet the 
 slave so endeavouring to entice another slave to run away, shall 
 also suffer DEATH. Ibid. 
 
 If a slave harbour, conceal or entertain another slave being a 
 runaway, in South Carolina and Georgia, he is subjected to cor 
 poral punishment, to any extent not affecting life or limb. 2 
 Brevard s Digest, 237; Prince s Digest, 452. In Maryland, 
 thirty-nine stripes is the penalty for harbouring one hour. Jlct 
 0/1748, chap. 19, 4. 
 
 A slave for being on horseback without the written permis 
 sion of his master, incurs twenty-five lashes, 1 Martin s Digest, 
 622 ; for keeping a dog, the like punishment, 1 Rev. Code, 
 (Mississippi] 379; for killing a deer, though by the command 
 of his master, overseer, &c. unless such command can be proved 
 by a ticket in writing, twenty lashes, 2 JSrev. Dig. 246; "for 
 being guilty of rambling, riding or going abroad in the 
 
 abettors, shall, upon conviction as aforesaid, suffer death." SBrevard s Digest, 
 233, act of 1740. After an experiment of eleven years duration, the legisla 
 ture relented so far as to declare, " That whereas by, &c. of the act entitled, 
 &c. it is (among other things contained) enacted, * That every slave who 
 shall endeavour to delude or entice any slave to run away and leave this pro 
 vince, shall upon conviction suffer death, which is a punishment too great for 
 the nature of the offence, as such offender might afterwards alter his intentions, 
 Be it therefore enacted, That such part of the said paragraph as relates only 
 to slaves endeavouring to delude or entice other slaves to run away and leave 
 this province, shall not operate or take effect, unless it shall appear that such 
 slave (so endeavouring to delude or entice other slaves to run away and leave 
 this province) shall have actually prepared provisions, arms, ammunition, horse 
 or horses, or any boat, canoe or other vessel whereby their intention shall be 
 manifested." 2 JSrev. Dig. 244, act of 1751. It is hardly necessary to remind 
 the intelligent reader, that the principle upon which the act of 1740 was found 
 ed, is retained in the amendment of 1751. The endeavour 1 on the part of a 
 slave to entice another to run away, is, in both laws, regarded as a crime 
 worthy of death. What shall constitute the evidence of this endeavour, is defined 
 in the amendment, namely, " the preparing provisions, &c. whereby the inten 
 tion sftall be manifested." And this is the only melioration of a law, which it is 
 acknowledged, in the same breath, imposed a punishment too severe for the 
 offence ! ! And such is still the law, after the lapse of three-fourths of a cen 
 tury. 
 
105 
 
 night, or riding horses in the day time without leave, a 
 slave may be whipt, cropt, or branded on the cheek with the 
 letter R, or otherwise punished, not extending to life, or so as 
 to render him unfit for labour." <ftct of Maryland of 1751, 
 chap. 14, 8. 
 
 If a slave beat the Patuxent river, (which is sometimes done 
 for the purpose of taking fish) ten lashes. Maryland Laws, act 
 of 1796, chap. 32, 3. ^And if he place a seine across the 
 Transquakin and Chickwiccomico creeks, a justice of the peace 
 may order him to receive thirty-nine lashes. Ibid, act of 1805, 
 chap. 31, 3. 
 
 In conclusion of this branch of the present section, may be 
 added a recent act of assembly of the state of Mississippi, of 
 great cruelty, relating to runaway slaves. It is entitled an 
 act to amend an act, entitled " An act to reduce into one, the 
 several acts concerning slaves, free negroes and mulattoes," 
 and may be found among the laws of the session of 1824. 
 The first section is in these words: " When any slave or slaves 
 shall be committed to any jail in this state, as a runaway or run 
 aways, it shall be the duty of the jailer of said county to inter 
 rogate him, her or them as to his, her or their owner or owners 
 name or names and place of residence, and the account thus re 
 ceived, together with a description of the slave or slaves, the 
 jailer shall forthwith transmit by mail to the owner or owners 
 named by the slave; and if the statement made by said slave or 
 slaves shall prove to be false, it shall be the duty of the jailer, 
 without delay, to give the said slave or each of them twenty-five 
 lashes, well laid on, and interrogate him, her or them anew, and 
 transmit the intelligence obtained, together with a description as 
 aforesaid, to the owner or owners again named, and whip as be 
 fore directed, if a second false account is given; and, so on, for 
 the space of six months, it shall be the duty of the jailer alter 
 nately to interrogate and whip as aforesaid, whenever the said 
 slave or slaves may give a false account of his, her or their 
 owner or owners name and place of residence." 
 
 To appreciate fully the cruelty of this law, it should be no 
 ticed, that its entire administration, inquisitorial and punitive, 
 is confined to a single person, the jailer ^ho, from the nature 
 
 14 
 
 
106 
 
 of his office, must have the slave wholly within his power; and 
 yet for the abuse of this power, in a case within the meaning of 
 the act, he may he regarded as altogether irresponsible to any 
 one. Without any design on the part of the slave, either to 
 pervert or to conceal the truth, it is highly probable that his 
 statement will, in many instances, be false, and in many more 
 appear to be so. For the state of Mississippi is, as to the 
 greater part of it, uncultivated and uninhabited; it is divided 
 into but few counties; the number of post offices which have 
 been established there is very small, and the names of the proper 
 post town must be frequently unknown even to white inhabi 
 tants, whose means of information are vastly superior to what 
 the slave possesses. The master s place of residence, which is 
 mentioned in the act. may be very remote from the post office, 
 and should it be known to the slave, would afford but little as 
 sistance to the jailer, as to the endorsement of his letter to the 
 master. As overseers are usually employed on plantations, it 
 will not be thought strange, that the ignorant slave should not 
 be acquainted with his master s name, especially his Christian 
 name. Proper names, both of men and places, are frequently 
 spelled very differently from what the pronunciation would 
 teach; and jailers are not ordinarily selected for good scholar 
 ship, or extensive information. Added to the whole, it should 
 be recollected, that miscarriages of letters, even when carefully 
 and correctly endorsed, occur not seldom, from the ignorance 
 or inattention of post-masters. Notwithstasding all these con 
 siderations, the jailer may, in his discretion, determine when 
 the slave s statement is false, and having inflicted the legal mea 
 sure of flagellation, may repeat the same punishment, again and 
 again, for the space of six months or, to use the language of 
 the act, so characteristic of that callousness to the slave s suffer 
 ings, which familiarity with cruelty begets " and so on, for 
 the spvace of six months, it shall be the duty of the jailer, alter 
 nately to interrogate and whip as aforesaid." 
 
 I come now to the exemplification of the second branch of 
 this chapter, which may be stated in the following proposition: 
 
 TlIE PENAL CODE OF THE SLAVE-HOLDING STATED INFLICTS 
 
107 
 
 PUNISHMENTS OP MUCH GREATER SEVERITY UPON SLAVES THAN 
 UPON WHITE PERSONS CONVICTED OP SIMILAR OFFENCES. 
 
 In treating of this proposition, I shall, in the first place, exhibit 
 synopses of the penal codes of the states of Virginia and Missis 
 sippi, so far as may be necessary in order to comprise the offences 
 which are punished by death in those states. This selection is 
 recommended by the considerations, that one of these states is 
 an old, and the other a new state that the codes of both have 
 been recently revised ~ and in some measure, by their relative 
 geographical positions. Virginia will be first noticed. In this 
 state, murder in the first degree arson, at common law wil 
 fully setting fire to a house in a town, or aiding, abetting, assist 
 ing, counselling, hiring or commanding any person to do the 
 same, are crimes severally punishable with death, whether the 
 offender be white or black, bond or free. 1 Rev. Code, 616 
 4- 587.* 
 
 The following table will place this subject in a clearer light; 
 the reader bearing in mind, that the numeral signs PREFIXED 
 to the crimes named in the first column of this table, are not 
 designed to convey the idea, that they are severally EXPONENTS 
 of one crime ONLY ; but are used, in connexion with similar 
 numeral signs, occupying similar places in the second and 
 third columns of the table, merely as a convenient means of 
 indicating the correspondence of the crimes, and their specific 
 punishments. So far from having the former signification, it 
 will be found, that the table comprises at least 71 crimes for 
 which SLAVES are CAPITALLY punished, though in none of these 
 are whites punished in a manner more severe than imprison 
 ment in the penitentiary. Thus, No. 3 contains at least FIVE 
 crimes; No. 11, TWO; No. 13, at least FOUR; No. 14, at least 
 THIRTY; No. 15, at least FIVE; No. 16, at least TWELVE. 
 
 * As a general remark on the subject of the penal code of this state, it may 
 be stated, that a conviction for a felony does not work a forfeiture of goods, 
 1 Rev, Code, 613, 
 
108 
 
 . 
 
109 
 
 M 
 
 ft * 3* 
 
 ilB 
 
 |<uS^ 
 
 S PH . 
 
 .S . 
 
 o 
 
 "^ oo 
 
 
 
 i!Wi 
 
11U 
 
 The penal code of Mississippi, though less sanguinary than 
 that of Virginia, yet, as an illustration of inequality, with respect 
 to the punishments imposed upon free white persons and slaves, 
 it may be properly cited. The following crimes* are in that state, 
 punished with death, whether the perpetrators are slaves, free 
 negroes, or white persons: 1. Murder 2. Robbery 3. Rape 
 4. Burglary 5. Wilfully burning a dwelling house, a store, a 
 cotton house or gin house, or any other out house or building, 
 adjoining to a dwelling house or store 6. Horse stealing, second 
 offence 7. Forgery 8. Being accessary before the fact to Rape 
 
 , 9. Being accessary before the fact to Arson, (as before defined,) 
 
 10. Being accessary before the fact to Robbery 11. Being 
 accessary before the fact to Burglary 12. For rescuing a person 
 convicted of a capital offence. 
 
 But with respect to a large catalogue of other offences, it will 
 be seen by the subjoined table, that a wide difference is made, 
 according as the offender is a slave, or free white person. 
 
 The crime of High Treason, being inapplicable to the condition of a 
 slave, is purposely omitted. 
 
Ill 
 
 *H C- CO 
 
 II 
 
 i^ta 1 
 
 *s *s 
 
 !=!! 
 
 rH (NCO 
 
112 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 
113 
 
 It would enlarge this chapter beyond its proper limits, to 
 furnish in extenso, a similar view of the punishment of offences, 
 in each of the slave-holding states. I shall content myself, 
 therefore, by indicating the difference which is made, in the 
 remaining states, as to the severity of the punishments, to 
 which slaves and white persons are severally subjected, in a 
 more general manner. 
 
 The penal codes of Tennessee and Missouri, are, compared 
 with those of the other slave-holding states, distinguished for 
 mildness, as respects the punishment of slaves. In Tennessee, 
 the act of November 8, 1819, chap. 35, has reduced the number 
 of capital felonies, when perpetrated by this unfortunate class 
 of persons, to Jive. It is in these words: "Murder, arson, 
 burglary, rape and robbery, shall, when committed by a slave 
 or slaves, be deemed capital offences, and be punished with 
 death, and all other offences shall be punished as before; Pro 
 vided, that the punishment in no case, shall extend to life 
 or limb, EXCEPT IN THE CASES ABOVE ENUMERATED." Not 
 having in my possession, any part of the laws of this state, 
 except the slave code, I am not able to say, for ho sv many and 
 for what offences, whites suffer death there. 
 
 In Missouri, capital offences, committed by slaves, are nearly 
 as few in number as in Tennessee. But six, are thus punished 
 1, murder 2, arson 3 and 4, preparing or administering 
 medicine, without his or her master s consent, &c., and when 
 it cannot be shown to have been prepared, or administered, 
 without an evil intent 5, conspiracy to rebel, and 6, a conspi 
 racy to murder any person, in furtherance of such conspiracy 
 to rebel, and by an overt act, attempting to execute such con 
 spiracy. 1 Missouri Laws, 312. Treason and murder, when 
 the offenders are whites are capital. Arson, by a white, is 
 punished with imprisonment for not less than one year, nor 
 more than seven years. For assaulting his master, a slave, on 
 conviction before a justice, incurs but thirty-nine stripes, ibid, 
 309 though there can be no doubt, as to the master s power, 
 to inflict as many more, as he may think fit, without the inter 
 position of the civil authority. In general, it will be seen, the 
 laws of this state, are unusually humane. Yet, under the fol~ 
 
 15 
 
114 
 
 lowing section of a law, passed July 4, 1825, great cruelty 
 may be legally practised: " For all other offences, (except the 
 above designated ones,) they (slaves,) shall be punished, at the 
 discretion of the court, before whom the conviction shall be 
 had, but no part of the punishment shall be fine or imprison 
 ment, but in lieu thereof, the court may punish by stripes at 
 their discretion" 1 Missouri Laws, 312-13. 
 
 In Kentucky, whites forfeit life for four crimes only,* viz. 
 1, Murder 2, wilfully burning the penitentiary 3, being ac 
 cessary thereto before the fact 4, the carnal abuse of a female 
 child under ten years of age. 2 Lift. # Swi. 1006-1009. 
 Slaves meet a similar punishment for eleven crimes. These are 
 rj-l, Murder 2, arson 3, rape, on a white woman 4, rob 
 bery 5, burglary 6, conspiracy to rebel 7, administering 
 poison with an intent to kill 8, manslaughter 9, attempting 
 to commit a rape on a white woman 10, shooting at a white 
 person with an intent to kill 11, wounding a white person 
 with an intent to kill. See 2 Lift. $ Swi. 1160-1-4. 
 
 All other offences, when perpetrated by slaves, are punish 
 able with whipping only, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes, ex 
 cept for advising the murder of any person; for this offence 
 one hundred lashes are authorized to be given, ibid, 1161-2. 
 
 Capital felonies abound in South Carolina. White persons 
 suffer death there for twenty -seven offences; in twenty-three of 
 which the Benefit of Clergy is not allowed. Slaves incur a 
 similar fate for thirty-six offences. From most of these also, 
 the Benefit of Clergy has been taken away. Simple larceny, 
 to the value of one dollar and seven cents, whether perpetrated 
 by a white person or by a slave, is a capital felony, without 
 the benefit of clergy!!! See James Digest, title, crimes and 
 misdemeanors* 
 
 * In this state, the Benefit of Clergy is taken away entirely, as to white 
 persons. 2 Litt. &? Swi. 985. Blacks and mulattoes, whether bond or free, 
 are allowed a privilege somewluit resembling it, i. e. a commutation of capital 
 punishment for " such corporal punishment short of life, as the court may 
 direct." 2 Litt. &f Sun. 1154. 
 
 f A distinction is made, by express law, in South Carolina, between males 
 and females, convicted of clergyablc offences. Both are to be marked in the 
 
115 
 
 In Georgia, exclusively of High Treason, whites are pun 
 ished capitally for three crimes only. Slaves, for at least* 
 nine. All other offences, committed by a slave, either against 
 persons or property, or against any other slave or person of 
 colour, to use the phraseology of the law, may be punished at 
 the discretion of the court, before whom such slave may be 
 tried, the court keeping in view the principles of humanity 
 in passing sentence, and in no case, extending the punishment 
 to life or limb. Prince s Digest, 461. Jlct of December \, 
 1816. 
 
 Haywood s Manual, which purports to be a complete digest 
 of the laws of North Carolina, which were in force at the date 
 of its publication, in 1818, contains no general penal code. I 
 am, for the most part, unable to ascertain from it, whether 
 crimes committed by whites, are at all punishable in that state. 
 And in reference to slaves, with the exception of offences al 
 ready noticed, for which whipping is commonly directed; 
 some barbarous enactments to invite and sanction the murder of 
 this defenceless class of beings, together with a few authorised 
 sanguinary expiations of minor offences, conclude all the in 
 formation which is to be derived from this source. Thus a 
 slave outlawed for running away, lurking in swamps, and do 
 ing mischief, may be lawfully killed by ANY PERSON. Hay- 
 wood s Manual, .521. 
 
 hand, upon the brawn of the left thumb, with a burning-hot iron, having a 
 Roman M or T upon it, according to the nature of the crime. But, a male is 
 discharged without further punishment, & female, may be whipped, placed in 
 the stocJcs, or imprisoned for the space of a year afterwards, at the discretion of 
 the court. James Digest, 97 & 99. 
 
 * I have used the words, at least, in this place, inasmuch as arson, which, in 
 the enumeration of the nine offences I have given for which slaves are capitally 
 punished, is ranked as but one offence, comprehends, according to the defini 
 tion in the Georgia Code, a considerable number, provided the offender be a 
 slave. The language of the code is, " arson is the malicious and wilful burn 
 ing of the house or out house of another." Prince s Digest, 351. An out 
 house, is a term of very loose and extensive import. For any such burning, a 
 slave is put to death. But it is only for the wilful and malicious burning or 
 setting fire to, or attempting to burn a house in a city, town or village, that * 
 white person is similarly punished, ibid, 
 
116 
 
 So to kill a slave, if the killing be done, by a white person, 
 in an effort to take, from the, slave any arms or ammunition, 
 which he is by law prohibited from keeping or, if a run 
 away slave be killed in the endeavour to apprehend him or, 
 if a slave shall happen to die under correction, by order of the 
 County Court, the homicide in each of these cases, is justifi 
 able. See Haywood s Manual, 522. For offering a forged 
 pass, &c. any corporal punishment, not extending to life, may 
 be inflicted, ibid, 531. 
 
 [A slave, convicted a second time, of killing a horse, or any 
 cattle, or a hog, suffers death, ibid, 91. So, if he misbrand 
 or mismark any of these animals death is the penalty, ibid. 
 
 This last offence, when committed by a white person, is pun 
 ished by a fine of ten pounds, proclamation money, over and 
 above the value of the animal misbranded or mismarked. ibid.*"] 
 
 Of the spirit which once breathed in Maryland, against ne 
 groes, the reader will be instructed, by an act passed in 1729. 
 (chap, iv.) in the following words. " Whereas several petit trea 
 sons and cruel and horrid murders have been lately committed 
 by negroes; which cruelties they were instigated to commit, 
 and hereafter may be instigated to commit, with the like inhu 
 manity, because they have no sense of shame, or apprehension 
 of future rewards or punishments; and that the manner of ex 
 ecuting offenders, prescribed by the laws of England, is not 
 sufficient to deter a people from committing the greatest cruel 
 ties, who only consider the rigour and severity of punishment; 
 Be it enacted, &c., that when any negro or other slave, shall 
 be convicted by confession or verdict of a jury, of any petit 
 treason or murder, or wilful burning of dwelling houses, it 
 shall and may be lawful for the justices before whom such con 
 viction shall be, to give judgment against such negro or other 
 
 * An act of assembly, passed in 1822, chap, xxvii. provides, "that any per 
 son who shall knowingly, alter or deface the mark or brand of any other per 
 son s neat cattle, sheep or hog 1 , or shall knowingly mismark or brand any un- 
 branded or unmarked neat cattle, sheep or hog, not properly his own, with 
 an intent to defraud any other person, such person or persons, on conviction, 
 in a Court of Record, shall be liable to corporal punishment, in the same man 
 ner as on conviction of petit larceny. " The same act repeals the laws in the 
 text, comprised within brackets. 
 
117 
 
 slave, to have the right hand cut off, to be hanged in the 
 usual manner, the head severed from the body, the body divid 
 ed into four quarters, and the head and quarters set up in 
 the most public places of the county where such fact was 
 committed!! The barbarous provisions of this law, it will be 
 seen, were not made compulsory with the justices before whom 
 the conviction might take place, but were entrusted to their 
 discretion. And, as " the declaration of rights" prefixed to 
 the constitution of Maryland, contains the following, among 
 other just principles, " That sanguinary laws ought to be avoid 
 ed, as far as is consistent with the safety of the state, and no 
 law to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties ought to be 
 made, in any case or at any time hereafter," no Justice, I pre 
 sume, would venture, in the exercise of his discretion, to give 
 in his sentence, full scope to the savage power confided to him. 
 Yet it cannot but move our wonder, that the act itself has not 
 been annulled. The last AUTHORIZED edition of the laws of this 
 state, which I have examined, comprises it among the laws still 
 in force. 
 
 It is apparent, from the views given in this chapter, that slaves 
 offending against the laws are subjected chiefly to two species of 
 punishment whipping and death. Cropping and the pillory 
 are seldom directed, unless in conjunction with whipping. In 
 several of the states, transportation is authorized, upon certain 
 conditions, as a commutation for the sentence of death. See 1 
 Virg. Rev. Code, 430 ; Haywood s Manual, 544 ; Maryland 
 Laws, act of 1809, ch. 138, 9, and act of 1819, ch. 159. 
 Putting in irons, and thus made to labour for his master, is 
 practised in Louisiana. 1 Mart. Dig. 688. As a mode of SE 
 CURING the person of a slave labouring under an accusation of 
 crime, previous to his trial, from necessity, imprisonment* 
 
 * The following provision is contained in a recent act of the legislature of 
 Virginia; " Whenever the master or owner of any slave shall desire to confine 
 him in the jail of any county or corporation within this commonwealth, it shall be 
 lawful for any justice of the peace, in such county or corporation, upon appli 
 cation of such master or owner or his agent, to grant a warrant to the jailer, 
 authorizing him to receive such slave into custody and to confine him in said 
 jail, provided, such justice be of opinion that such slave may be so confined 
 
118 
 
 is resorted to. But as a punishment after conviction, except 
 in the state of Louisiana, where the laws have in some mea 
 sure recognised its adoption, it appears to be utterly unknown, 
 In an act of assembly of this last mentioned state, juries convok 
 ed for the trial of a slave on a charge not capitals may direct 
 the slave to be imprisoned not exceeding eight days. 1 Mar 
 tin s Digest, 688, act of March 19, 1816. Imprisonment for 
 life is mentioned several times in the laws of the same state, as 
 a known punishment for slaves; yet for what offences, and under 
 what circumstances it is authorized, I have not been able to 
 ascertain. See ibid. An act of assembly, posterior in point of 
 time to the publication of the work just cited, vests the power 
 in the governor and senate to commute the punishment of death 
 into a lesser punishment in favour of slaves, upon the recom 
 mendation of the judge and jury by whom the offender has been 
 tried, if the circumstances of the case shall be such as may be 
 thought to entitle him to such commutation ; and among these 
 lesser punishments, perpetual imprisonment is named. *flct of 
 March 5, 1823. Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia, 
 have introduced the system of penitentiary confinement, as 
 means for the reformation and punishment of criminals. Yet 
 the first three* of these states have expressly restricted the ap 
 plication of this system to white convicts ; and the like distinc 
 tion is so strongly implied by the law of Georgia, that I have 
 no doubt it exists there also. 
 
 This exclusion of imprisonment as a mode of punishment for 
 slaves, has led, it is believed, to the multiplication of capital 
 
 without public inconvenience," &c. The duration of this confinement is made 
 to depend on the master s will, unless the public convenience should require 
 the slave s discharge. Ad of Assembly of February 25th, 1824, 4, entitled 
 " An act concerning- servants and slaves." A law of Missouri, nearly similar to 
 this, though less exceptionable, I have noted in a previous page. The remarks 
 there made may, with equal appositeness, be repeated here. See supra, 
 page 43. 
 
 * In Maryland, by an act passed January 6, 1810, (act of November session, 
 1809, chap. 138,) slaves convicted of certain offences might be sentenced to 
 confinement in the penitentiary. But, at a subsequent period, this provision 
 was repealed. Laws of Maryland, of December session, 1818, chap. 197, 1. 
 
offences as to this class of people. Dismemberment, as it would 
 in general diminish the value of the slave, and partakes so largely 
 of savage ferocity, has probably at no period been much tole 
 rated. For a solitary, offence, however, it is authorized in Mis 
 souri. 1 Missouri Laws, 312. 
 
 Corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb, (which is 
 another name for excessive whipping,) though sanctioned in 
 several cases, must be open, in a great degree, to the objections 
 which apply to dismemberment. It is presumable, on this 
 account, that it is not frequent in practice. In general, there 
 fore, death has been resorted to, as the only punishment, ac 
 cording to the sentiments of slave-holders, adapted to a state of 
 slavery, for all offences except those of a trivial nature. 
 
 VII. SLAVES ARE PROSECUTED AND TRIED UPON CRIMINAL 
 
 ACCUSATIONS IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHTS 
 OF HUMANITY. 
 
 Trial by jury has been frequently and justly extolled as the 
 palladium of civil liberty. As it existed in full vigour in Eng 
 land, when the settlement of this country began, by the princi 
 ples of colonization it was imported by our ancestors, as part of 
 the laws and customs of the mother country applicable to their 
 new situation. But African slavery having originated in the 
 foulest iniquity, it was natural that it should be sustained and 
 perpetuated by consentaneous means. Accordingly, in but few, 
 if in any, of the colonies, was trial by jury allowed to the slave. 
 And thus it happens, that though the constitution of the United 
 States, as well as most* of the constitutions of the individual 
 members of the confederacy, secure to the citizen, impeached of 
 crime, the benefit of this institution, yet, as this has been done, 
 through the medium of language, which does not embrace the 
 case of the slave, but has reference to precedent usage, he is left 
 in this particular, in the like condition of exclusion, in which he 
 stood under the colonial governments. 
 
 A considerable diversity, however, obtains on this subject, 
 in the different states. In Kentucky r , a slave charged with an 
 
 * The constitution of Virginia contains no provision as to trial by jury, 
 
120 
 
 offence punishable with death, is entitled to the benefit as well 
 of the grand as of the petit jury. He is to be " tried and pro 
 secuted in the circuit courts only, and in the same manner, and 
 under the same forms of trial, as are by law prescribed in the 
 cases of free persons." Act of Feb. 10, 1819, 2 Litt. fy Swi. 
 1164 .In Georgia, on capital charges, no provison is made 
 for the interposition of the grand jury ; yet the right of trial by 
 a petit jury, with the privilege to the master of challenging 
 seven persons on behalf of the slave, is expressly directed and 
 sanctioned. Prince s Digest, 459. By the constitution of Mis 
 sissippi, it is declared, " In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, 
 no inquest by a grandly shall be necessary, but the proceed 
 ings in such cases shall be regulated by law, except that in capi 
 tal cases, the general assembly shall have no power to deprive 
 them of an impartial trial by a petit jury." The act of assem 
 bly, which has been passed to carry into effect this article of the 
 constitution, grants to the slave, on his trial for a capital offence, 
 nearly all the advantages of a petit jury (except as to witnesses) 
 which are possessed by whites. Mississippi Rev. Code, 382. 
 Article 3, 27, of the constitution of Missouri, is in these 
 words: " In prosecutions for crimes, slaves shall not be deprived 
 of an impartial trial by jury ; and a slave convicted of a capital 
 offence shall suffer the same degree of punishment, and no other, 
 that would be inflicted on a free white person for alike offence; 
 and courts of justice before whom slaves shall be tried, shall as 
 sign them counsel for their defence." In the constitution of 
 Jllabama, a provision is inserted, denying to the general assem 
 bly power to deprive slaves of an impartial trial by a petit jury, 
 when prosecuted for a crime " of a higher grade than petit 
 larceny." See constitution, title slaves, 2. A declaration 
 is comprised in the bill of rights which forms a part of the con 
 stitution of Maryland, (arid also in the constitutions of several 
 of the other states,) of the following tenor: " That in all crimi 
 nal prosecutions every man hath a right to be informed of the 
 accusation against him ; to have a copy of the indictment or 
 charge in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence ; to 
 be allowed counsel; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
 him; to have process for his witnesses; to examine the witnesses 
 
121 
 
 for and against him, on oath ; and, to a speedy trial BY AN IM 
 PARTIAL JURY, without whose unanimous consent he ought 
 not be found guilty." Decl. of Rights, 19, and see Const, of 
 Alabama, title Decl. of Rights, 10; ibid, of Mississippi, tit. 
 ibid, 10; ibid of Missouri, ibid, 9, fyc. $*c. A citizen of one 
 of the free states would unhesitatingly construe this declaration 
 to be a constitutional guaranty to the slave of the trial by jury 
 upon every criminal accusation. In the slave-holding states, 
 however, it has no such meaning. By reference to the consti 
 tutions of Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, as above noted, 
 the same provision will be found embodied there, in terms equally 
 strong and explicit indeed, in nearly the same as those con 
 tained in the constitution of Maryland as above cited. And 
 yet, quotations taken from the same instruments, and already 
 transcribed into this chapter, evidence in the clearest manner, 
 that slaves are not considered as embraced by such provision. 
 And in relation to the state of Maryland, the following law com 
 pels us to the like conclusion: " Whensoever any negro, Indian 
 or mulatto slave, shall hereafter be charged with any pilfering 
 or stealing, or any other crime or misdemeanor whereof the 
 county court might have cognizance, it shall and may be lawful 
 for any of the justices of the provincial or county courts, upon 
 complaint made before him, to cause such negro, Indian or mulatto 
 slave so offending to be brought immediately before him or any 
 other justice of the peace for the county where such offence is 
 committed, who, upon due proof made against any such negro 
 or (Indian) or mulatto slave of any of the crimes as aforesaid, 
 such justice is hereby authorized and empowered to award 
 and cause to be inflicted, according to the nature of the 
 crime, such punishment by whipping as he shall think fit, not 
 exceeding forty lashes. 79 Act of 1717. chap. 13, 6. This 
 law, notwithstanding that it abrogates the right of trial by jury 
 in the case of slaves accused of the offences enumerated in it, is 
 given as in force, in an edition oi the laws of the state, published 
 under the express sanction at the legislature in 1799, (twenty- 
 three years after the adoption of the constitution,) and in other 
 more recent editions. But, wherever the life of the slave is the 
 penalty of crime, no exception can be taken lo the tribunal 
 
 16 
 
122 
 
 which decides upon his fate in this state ; trial by jury is theft 
 allowed. Maryland Laws, act 0/1751, chap. 14. 
 
 The constitution of North Carolina guarantees trial by jury 
 to freemen only. It declares, " That no freeman shall be put 
 to answer any criminal charge, but by indictment, presentment 
 or impeachment. That no freeman shall be convicted of any 
 crime, but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and 
 lawful men, in open court, as heretofore used." See Bill of 
 Rights, 8 & 9. A sense of justice has, however, so far tri 
 umphed over the prejudice by which these provisions were dic 
 tated, as to concede to slaves the privileges contained in the 
 subjoined extract from a law passed in the year 1793. " In all 
 cases hereafter happening, where any slave shall be accused of 
 an offence, the punishment whereof shall extend to life, limb 
 or member, such slave shall be entitled to trial by jury, on oath, 
 consisting of twelve good and lawful men, owners of slaves, in 
 a summary way and in open court of the county wherein such 
 offence was committed."* Hay wood s Manual, 532. Tennessee^ 
 at the date of this act, was a component part of North Carolina, 
 and after their separation, agreeably to an article in the constitu 
 tion of the former, she continued in the observance of the laws of 
 the parent state, until they were severally annulled or modified 
 by her own legislature. A slight modification, by her legis 
 lature, took place in this law, by an act passed October 23, 
 1813, in which it was declared " That in the trial of slaves, 
 for all offences w r here a jury is now required by law, it shall be 
 the duty of the sheriff to summon three justices to preside on 
 the trial, and twelve housekeepers being owners of slaves to 
 serve as a jury on such trial, and should the jury find the slave 
 guilty of the offence charged, the said justices shall proceed to 
 
 * It is with great pleasure \ record the following humane provision of an act 
 passed in 1822, by the legislature of North Carolina. " Hereafter, on the trial 
 of any slave or slaves for capital offences, if it shall appear to the presiding 
 judge, by affidavit or otherwise, that t^ch slave or slaves cannot have a fair 
 trial in the county wherein the offence is charged to have been committed, it 
 shall and may be lawful for such judge to order the removal of such cause to an 
 adjoining county for trial, notwithstanding the -atiaster or owner of such slave 
 or slaves may neglect or refuse to make an application to the court for that 
 purpose," M of Assembly 0/1822, chap. 2, 2, 
 
pronounce judgment and award execution according to law." 
 Tennessee Laws of 1813, chap. 35. The change in the former 
 act, which is thus effected, is decisively unfavourable to the 
 slave. For though the trial by jury still subsists, yet it is en 
 tirely within the power of the sheriff to make the selection 
 both of the justices and of the jurors a power too important 
 and too easily abused to be delegated to any individual. 
 
 But trial by jury is utterly denied to the slave, even in crimi 
 nal accusations which may affect his life, in the states of 
 SOUTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA and LOUISIANA; and the tribunal 
 which is made to serve as its substitute, can boast of none of its 
 excellences. This tribunal is usually styled " the justices and 
 freeholders court." Its constitution, and the manner in which 
 its proceedings are conducted, will be best conveyed to the 
 reader, by a transcript of the act of South Carolina: "Ml crimes 
 and offences committed by slaves in this state, for which capital 
 punishment may lawfully be inflicted, shall be heard, examined, 
 tried and adjudged, and finally determined by any two justices 
 of the peace, and any number of freeholders not less than three 
 nor more than five, in the district where the offence shall be 
 committed, and at a place where they can be most conveniently 
 assembled; either of which justices, on complaint made on infor 
 mation received, of any such offence committed by a slave, shall 
 commit the offender to the safe custody of some Constable of the 
 district, and shall without delay, by warrant wilder his hand and 
 seal, call to his assistance and request a*y one of the nearest 
 justices of the peace to associate with hi 1 ; and shall by the same 
 warrant, summon the number of fr/^holders aforesaid from the 
 neighbourhood, to assemble anr 1 meet together with the said 
 justices, at a certain day and r&ce, not exceeding six days after 
 the apprehending of such *ave or slaves, &c. ; and the justices 
 and freeholders being sr assembled, shall cause the slave accused 
 or charged to be brought before them, and shall hear the accu 
 sation that shall te brought against such slave or slaves, and his, 
 her or their de-^nce, and shall proceed to the examination of 
 witnesses ad other evidence, and finally hear and determine 
 the matter brought before them in the most summary and ex 
 peditious manner; and in case the accused shall be convicted of 
 
124 
 
 any crime, tor which by law, the punishment would he death, 
 the said justices shall give judgment and award such manner* 
 of death, as the said justices, with the consent of said free 
 holders, shall direct, and which they shall judge will be most 
 effectual to deter others from offending in the like manner." 
 James 7 Digest, 392-3. In Louisiana, by an act of assembly ? 
 passed June 7, 1806, this act of South Carolina was adopted, 
 with no other change, than that a judge of the court, may, if 
 present, act, instead of the two justices of the peace. 1 Mar 
 tin s Digest, 642. The law, in Virginia, is substantially 
 the same, as to the constitution of the court, the only differ 
 ence being, that instead of the two justices and three freehol 
 ders, Jive justices, WITHOUT JURIES, says the act, shall be a 
 competent tribunal for trying slaves, charged with felony. 1 
 Rev. Code, 428. But in Virginia, in the procedure of the 
 court on the trial of a slave, he enjoys two important advan 
 tages which are not yielded to him, either in South Carolina or 
 Louisiana one, in the allowance of counsel, for whose ser 
 vices a proper compensation is fixed by law, to be paid by the 
 master, the other, in requiring unanimity in the justices, to 
 authorize a conviction. 1 Virg. Rev. Code, 429. 
 
 In the best constituted courts, where skilful counsel aid the 
 prisoner in h\s defence, where a jury of twelve men, imparti 
 ally selected, against whom he has no ground for even the sus 
 picion of an unfavourable bias, must concur in their verdict, 
 and with the judge v$ his legal adviser, (for such the huma 
 nity of the common lav considers him,) it is not to be doubted 
 that innocent persons have; n some instances, from the fallibility 
 of human judgment, been contemned to death. At times, when 
 the passions of men are highij inflamed, when the offence 
 charged is loudly reprobated by the DU blic voice, or, when, in 
 monarchical governments, the strong br m o f power, is exerted 
 to crush an obnoxious individual, even tnd by jury, with all its 
 guards against oppression, is, not seldom, an ^adequate security 
 
 * Under the authority here given to the justices and freeholders, " to award 
 such manner of death, as they may think fit," horrid spectacles arc sometimes 
 exhibited to public gaze. An account of one of these, i. e. the burning of a 
 negro woman to death, may be found in the daily prints of 1820. 
 
125 
 
 to the accused. Yet, a conviction in such cases, can be obtained 
 only through the concurrent decisions of two distinct tribunals, 
 each composed of at least twelve men, all of whom act under the 
 most solemn responsibility. What chance of justice, then, has 
 an ignorant slave, under accusation, for example, of exciting an 
 insurrection, before a tribunal, chosen by his accuser, sudden 
 ly convoked, consisting of but five persons, (a majority of 
 whom, in South Carolina and Louisiana, may convict,) without 
 any one to countenance or advise him in the conduct of his de 
 fence. 
 
 The Court of Justices, &c. it would appear, is to continue in 
 session for the trial of all slaves against whom complaint has 
 been made. I speak in reference to the law of South Carolina 
 and Louisiana, as not being entirely certain on this point; for 
 as respects Virginia, there can be no doubt that such is the 
 case, inasmuch as the ordinary justices of the county courts, 
 make up this extraordinary tribunal for the trial of the slave. 
 Those who are to determine upon the guilt or innocence of ano- 
 other, accused of a criminal offence, ought if possible, to be unin 
 formed, except through the medium of witnesses examined in the 
 particular trial, of the facts alleged against him, as grounds for 
 conviction. A permanent tribunal in cases of extensive con 
 spiracies in insurrections especially, cannot possess this essen 
 tial qualification. One of the many advantages which apper 
 tain to the trial by jury, is, that each prisoner may if he so 
 elect, have a separate body to hear and decide between him and 
 his accusers. 
 
 The foregoing remarks, have an especial bearing on the con 
 stitution of the justices and freeholders courts. A law made 
 for the regulation of these courts, in the conduct of the slave s 
 trial, is also obnoxious to severe reprehension. Holding the 
 slave, (as indeed all persons who are not white,) to be unwor 
 thy of belief in a controversy, which concerns even the pro 
 perty of a white man, the law-makers of most of the slave- 
 holding states, have nevertheless, directed the testimony of the 
 slave, without oath or solemn affirmation, to be received for or 
 against a fellow slave, arrainged as the perpetrator of any cri 
 minal ofience, and at the same time, in several of these states, 
 
126 
 
 the precious boon of freedom is never conferred, except for 
 what is termed, " meritorious services;" an import ant part 
 of ivhich is, the giving information of crimes committed by 
 a slave. The admission of slave testimony, upon such condi 
 tions, can hardly result beneficially to the accused. In truth, 
 it would seem by the preamble of the law of South Carolina, 
 on this head, that convictions only were sought for by the le 
 gislature who enacted it. The whole section reads thus: " and 
 for the preventing the concealment of crimes and offences 
 committed by slaves, and for the more effectual discovery and 
 bringing slaves to condign punishment,* Be it enacted, that 
 not only the evidence of all free Indians, without oath, but the 
 evidence of any slave without oath, shall be allowed and ad 
 mitted in all causes whatsoever, for or against another slave, 
 accused of any crime or offence whatsoever, the weight of 
 which evidence being seriously considered, and compared with 
 all other circumstances attending the case, shall be left to the 
 conscience of the justices and freeholders. " 2 JBrev. Dig. 232. 
 James Dig. 394. In Virginia, 1 Rev. Code, 422 and 431; 
 in North Carolina and Tennessee, Haywood s Manual, 522, 
 in Kentucky, 2 Lift, fy Swi. 1150 & 1153-4, in Mississippi, 
 Rev. Code, 382, laws of a similar character may be found, though 
 the meaning is left somewhat to implication. In Georgia and 
 Louisiana, this extraordinary exception as to the qualification of 
 a witness, who is a slave, is not recognised. In other respects, 
 the law may be regarded as the same. Prince s Digest, 448. 
 1 Martin s Digest, 642. 
 
 Hitherto, our attention has been chiefly confined to the con 
 sideration of the trial of the slave, when accused of a capital 
 offence. Another species of punishment scarcely less severe, 
 is sometimes imposed. I allude " to corporal punishment, 
 not extending to life or limb,"\ and is usually denominated 
 
 * In Virginia, an act was passed in 1705, a part of the title of which was, 
 "for the speedy and easy prosecution of slaves committing capital crimes. * 
 See 2 Tucker s Blackstone, appendix, 59. 
 
 f This barbarous punishment, is not in terms, licensed in Kentucky. Yet, 
 in point of fact, I fear, it may occur there, and yet challenge the sanction of 
 law. A very high crime, " advising or consulting to commit murder," is pun 
 ishable, if ajf wry so direct, with one hundred lashes!" 2 Litt. & Sun. 1161. 
 
127 
 
 in the acts of assembly, but which may be more accurately de 
 fined ; any torture on the body of a slave, which can be prac 
 tised without producing death or dismemberment. Cutting 
 off the ears, and the pillory, are in considerable favour with 
 the legislatures of Georgia, North and South Carolina and De 
 laware. But the punishment of universal prevalence, and of 
 perpetual occurrence, is whipping. The infliction of this pun 
 ishment to the extent of " twenty lashes, on the bare back, well 
 laid on," is deemed in a great variety of cases, of insufficient 
 moment to claim the intervention even of a single magistrate. 
 Any white person, a drunken patrol, an absconding felon, or 
 a vagabond mendicant, is supposed to possess discretion enough 
 to interpret the laws, and to wield the cowskin or cart-whip, 
 for their infraction; and should death ensue by accident, while 
 the slave is thus receiving moderate correction, the constitution 
 of Georgia, and the laws of North Carolina, kindly denominate 
 the offence, justifiable homicide ! ! 
 
 In Kentucky, offences by slaves which are not capital, are, with 
 the solitary exception, indicated in the last act, punished with 
 whipping, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes. 2 Litt. 4* Swi. 
 1160; and one justice of the peace, without the intervention of 
 a jury, may inquire into, and decide upon, the guilt or inno 
 cence of the slave charged with the commission of the same, 
 ibid, 1161. The like authority is vested in a justice of the 
 peace, by the laws of North Carolina, in cases where the pun 
 ishment cannot exceed the number of forty stripes. Hay wood 9 s 
 Manual, 526-7. So, in Virginia and Mississippi, many of the 
 breaches of the law, for which the allotted expiation is whip 
 ping, must undergo the examination of a justice of the peace, 
 before punishment can be lawfully inflicted. The decision of 
 the justice, is, however, final and the sentence is carried into 
 execution immediately. Even the cutting off of an ear, may 
 be directed by a single magistrate, in South Carolina, for an 
 
 In Georgia and South Carolina, it will be recollected, that terrible as this 
 punishment is, in one case, at least, the slave incurs it, for what, in the estima 
 tion of no rational being, can be accounted a crime, or any thing resembling 
 it, i. e. the want of success in a trial for freedom before a judicial tribunal!, See 
 supra, page 77. 
 
128 
 
 act which, if done by a white person, would not be denomiv 
 nated a crime, nor be punishable at all as such. 2 Brevard s 
 Digest, 227-8. See supra, page 102. 
 
 But in most of the slave-holding states,* the ordinary tribu 
 nal for the trial of slaves, charged with the perpetration of in 
 ferior crimes, for which the punishment of death is not award 
 ed, is composed of justices and freeholders, or justices only. The 
 number of these varies in a small degree, in the different states 
 being in Virginia, five justices. 1 Rev. Code, 428, in Georgia, 
 in North Carolina and in Tennessee, three. Prince s Dig. 459. 
 Hay wood s Manual, 522 & 526; in Louisiana, one justice 
 and three freeholders; 1 Martin s Digest, 645-6; in South 
 Carolina, one justice and two freeholders. James Digest, 393; 
 in Mississippi, one justice and two slave-holders. Miss. Rev. 
 Code, 391. In Louisiana, ONE HALF OF THE COURT MAY CON 
 VICT, ALTHOUGH THE OTHER HALF, BE IN FAVOUR OF ACQUIT- 
 
 TAL.t 1 Martin s Digest, 646; in South Carolina, a majority 
 (i. e. two, one of which, must be the justice,) is necessary to a 
 conviction, and, except in Virginia, where, as it has been be 
 fore stated, unanimity is always required for this purpose; I take 
 it to be the proper construction of the law, that a majority con 
 stitutes a quorum, and is competent to render judgment either 
 for or against the slave. 
 
 * In Kentucky, the justices and freeholders court, is, I believe, unknown. 
 The constitution of Missouri, by the extract from it, given in this chapter, 
 secures to the slave, trial by jury, under every criminal accusation. A similar 
 provision, exists in that of Alabama, for all offences higher than petit larceny. 
 
 f i. e. the Justice and one freeholder, may convict. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON THE DISSOLUTION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 Section 1. OF THE LAWS FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 THE laws which regulate the voluntary emancipation of slaves 
 by their masters, will form the principal subject of this chapter. 
 But before entering upon the consideration of these, I purpose 
 furnishing, with but little deviation from chronological order, 
 some notice of the measures by which slavery has been abolished 
 in many of our states. 
 
 It is well known, that negro slavery was introduced into this 
 country by means of the African slave trade, prosecuted during 
 the period of our colonial subjection to Great Britain. At the 
 time of our separation from the mother country, this evil, which 
 had taken deep root at a much earlier date, prevailed more or 
 less in all the British American colonies. It was protected by 
 the laws of each of these, and continued so to be, even after the 
 Declaration of our Independence, and until the first day of 
 March, <ft. D. 1780, when the first glorious effort for its aboli 
 tion was made by the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 That day gave birth to an act of assembly, in its consequences 
 second only to the Declaration of Independence. Its title dis 
 tinctly proclaimed its object, in words few but of large import: 
 
 " AN ACT FOR THE GRADUAL ABOLITION OF SLAVERY." 
 
 The preamble to this act contains such just and generous sen 
 timents, depicts with so much force of truth and language the 
 sorrows of slavery, and places the arguments for its abolition so 
 concisely and yet so advantageously before the mind, that I 
 cannot refuse myself the pleasure of transcribing it at length. 
 " When we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition, to 
 which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain were exerted to 
 reduce us; when we look back on the variety of dangers to which 
 we have been exposed, and how miraculously our wants in many 
 instances have been supplied, and our deliverance wrought,. 
 
 17 
 
130 
 
 when even hope and human fortitude have become unequal to 
 the conflict, we are unavoidably led to a serious and grateful 
 sense of the manifold blessings which we have undeservedly re 
 ceived from the hand of that Being, from whom every good and 
 perfect gift cometh. Impressed with these ideas, we conceive 
 that it is our duty, and we rejoice that it is in our power to ex 
 tend a portion of that freedom to others which hath been extended 
 to us, and release from that state of thraldom to which we our 
 selves were tyrannically doomed, and from which we have now 
 every prospect of being delivered. It is not for us to inquire 
 why, in the creation of mankind, the inhabitants of the several 
 parts of the earth were distinguished by a difference in feature 
 or complexion. It is sufficient to know, that all are the work 
 of an Almighty hand. We find in the distribution of the human 
 species, that the most fertile as well as the most barren parts of 
 the earth, are inhabited by men of complexions different from 
 ours, and from each other ; from whence we may reasonably as 
 well as religiously infer, that He, who placed them in their va 
 rious situations, hath extended equally his care and protection 
 to all, and that it becometh not us to counteract his mercies. 
 We esteem it a peculiar blessing granted to us, that we are en 
 abled this day to add one more step to universal civilization, by 
 removing, as much as possible, the sorrows of those who have 
 lived in undeserved bondage, and from which, by the assumed 
 authority* of the kings of Great Britain, no effectual relief could 
 be obtained. Weaned by a long course of experience from those 
 narrow prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find our 
 hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of 
 
 * The most signal effort here alluded to on the part of the General Assem 
 bly of Pennsylvania, when a colony, to prevent the importation of slaves, 
 was by an act, which bears the title, " An ad to prevent the importation of ne 
 groes and Indians into this province," passed June 7, 1712, but disallowed and 
 accordingly repealed by Queen Anne, on the 20th February, 1713. This act, 
 though repealed, may be found on record, in the office of the Secretary of the 
 Commonwealth, at Harrisburgh, SooJc A, vol. 2, page 50. I am induced to be 
 thus minute in this reference, since the same act is mentioned in the Memoirs 
 of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, page 370, to have been lost. 
 The date there assigned to it is 1711 an error which has probably misled the 
 person by whom the search was made, 
 
131 
 
 all conditions and nations ; and we conceive ourselves at this 
 particular period extraordinarily called upon, by the blessings 
 which we have received, to manifest the sincerity of our pro 
 fession, and to give a substantial proof of our gratitude. 
 
 " And whereas the condition of those persons who have here 
 tofore been denominated negro and mulatto slaves, has been 
 attended with circumstances which not only deprived them of 
 the common blessings that they were by nature entitled to, but 
 has cast them into the deepest afflictions by an unnatural separa 
 tion and sale of husband and wife from each other and from their 
 children, an injury, the greatness of which can only be conceived 
 by supposing that we were in the same unhappy case. In jus 
 tice, therefore, to persons so unhappily circumstanced, and who, 
 having no prospect before them whereon they may rest their 
 sorrows and their hopes, have no reasonable inducement to ren 
 der their service to society, which they otherwise might, and 
 also in grateful commemoration of our own happy deliverance 
 from that state of unconditional submission to which we were 
 doomed by the tyranny of Britain, Be it enacted, That all 
 persons, as well negroes and mulattoes as others, who shall be 
 born within this state from and after the passing of this act, 
 shall not be deemed and considered as servants for life or slaves 5 
 and that all servitude for life or slavery of children in conse 
 quence of the slavery of their mothers, in the case of all children 
 born within this state from and after the passing of this act as 
 aforesaid, shall be and hereby is, UTTERLY TAKEN AWAY, EX 
 TINGUISHED AND FOR EVER ABOLISHED." 
 
 The fourth and next section of the act relates to the children 
 of the slaves which, according to the foregoing provisions, would 
 be born free. It will be more properly introduced hereafter. 
 
 The fifth section made it the duty of the owner of any slave 
 for life, &c. to cause him or her to be registered* at a place par- 
 
 * Many suits have been brought under this act, chiefly in consequence of an 
 omission by the master to register his slaves in due time, or from some defect 
 in the statement furnished by the master to the officer by whom the registry 
 was directed to be made. None of them, however, possess general interest, 
 nor are deemed of sufficient practical value, so much time having elapsed 
 since the passing of the act, to require particular reference. 
 
132 
 
 ticularly designated, (the registry to contain the name, age and 
 sex of such slave, and the name, surname, occupation or profes 
 sion of the master, and the name of the county, &c. wherein 
 the master resided, ) on or before the first day of November next 
 ensuing the date of this act, " in order to ascertain and distin 
 guish the slaves, &c. within this state, who should be such on 
 the said first day of November, from all other persons," and 
 declared, that with certain exceptions mentioned in other sections 
 of the act, no negro or mulatto, then within the state, should, 
 from and after the said first day of November, be deemed a slave, 
 &c. unless his or her name, &c. should be registered as aforesaid ; 
 and in the tenth section, the latter provision of the .fifth was in 
 substance repeated, the language of which being as follows: " No 
 man or woman of any nation or colour, except the negroes and 
 mulattoes who shall be registered as aforesaid, shall at any time 
 hereafter, be deemed, adjudged or holden, within the territories 
 of this commonwealth, as slaves or servants for life, but as free 
 men and free women, except the domestic slaves attending upon 
 delegates in congress from the other American states, foreign 
 ministers and consuls, and persons passing through or sojourning 
 in this state and not becoming resident therein, and seamen 
 employed in ships not belonging to any inhabitant of this state, 
 nor employed in any ship owned by any such inhabitant, pro 
 vided, such domestic slaves be not alienated or sold to any in 
 habitant, nor (except in the case of members of congress, foreign 
 ministers and consuls) retained in this state longer than six 
 months"* 
 
 * It has been decided in Pennsylvania, that where the owner of slaves in 
 Maryland, leased a farm, together with his slaves to cultivate it, that the con 
 sent of such lessee that one of the slaves should be removed to Pennsylvania, 
 and his being brought there, would not entitle him to freedom. Butler and 
 others vs. Delaplaine, 7 Serg. & Hawk s Rep. 378. Had the owner himself 
 consented to such removal, the decision would have been different, unless he 
 had been within the excepted cases mentioned in this tenth section. It was also 
 decided at the same time, that " the sojourning of a master, a citizen of another 
 state, with his slave, in the state of Pennsylvania, would not entitle such slave 
 to freedom, unless there was at some time a continued retaining of the slave 
 here for six months, except perhaps, in a case of a fraudulent removal back 
 wards and forwards." 
 
133 
 
 The import of these fifth and tenth sections could not have 
 been mistaken, had not the legislature inserted between the two, 
 
 A decision of JUDGE WASHINGTON, given at Philadelphia, in 1806, at the 
 October term of the Circuit Court of tfie United States for the third circuit, &fc. 
 inasmuch as it recognises the validity of the tenth section of the abolition act of 
 1780, may be here introduced. It is thus reported, in the first volume of Wash 
 ington s Circuit Court Reports, page 500 et seq. case of Sutler vs. Hopper.- 
 " This case comes before the court on a special verdict, the material parts of 
 which, find, that the plaintiff formerly lived in the state of South Carolina, 
 where, as well as in Georgia, he had a valuable plantation which he cultivated, 
 and still cultivates, by his overseers and slaves, and on which he had, and still 
 has, a furnished house and servants. That from the year 1794 to the present 
 time, with the exception of an annual visit to his plantations at the southward, 
 continuing from October in each year till May or June following, he has kept 
 a dwelling house in the city of Philadelphia, and has resided in it, with his 
 family, consisting of several children and domestic servants, and among the 
 latter Ben, the subject of the present suit, who was his property, as a slave, at 
 the time of his coming into this city, and who continued with him, claimed as 
 such, until September 1805, when he was discharged from his service, under 
 a habeas cai pus issued from the court of common pleas of this state. Whilst 
 on his plantation in South Carolina, during these annual visits, the plaintiff 
 kept house, always having Ben with him. From the year 1794, until the 4th 
 of January, 1805, the plaintiff represented the state of South Carolina in con 
 gress, except for two years, between 1796 and 1800, when he was a member 
 of the legislature of that state. Upon these facts/ said Judge Washington, 
 " the question is, whether Ben became free, by virtue of a law of this state, 
 (Pennsylvania) passed on the first of March, 1780," (the Judge then quoted 
 the tenth section of this act. ) 
 
 After disposing of an objection which had been suggested by the plaintiff s 
 counsel to the validity of the law, by reason of the ninth section of article first 
 of the constitution of the United States, and showing the inapplicability to the 
 present case of the second section of article fourth of the same instrument, he 
 proceeded in the following words: " We come then to the consideration of this 
 law, (act of 1780, tenth section,) and of the facts found in the special verdict. 
 The plaintiff claims an exemption from the enacting part of the section above 
 stated, upon two grounds: first, as a member of congres; and secondly, as a 
 sojourner. The first will not answer his purpose, because for two years he 
 ceased to be a member of congress, and therefore lost the privilege which that 
 character might otherwise have conferred upon him, under the exception in 
 the law. 
 
 " The next question then is, can the plaintiff be considered as within the other 
 exception of the law, a sojourner during the period when he ceased to be a 
 member of congress? But the verdict precludes all inquiry into this point, by 
 finding, that the plaintiff, from the year 1794 to the present time, has resided 
 
184 
 
 under the name of a sixth section, this obscure proviso to, the 
 fifth " Provided always, That any person in whom the own 
 ership or right of service of any negro, &c. shall be vested at 
 the passing of this act, other than such as are herein before ex- 
 cepted, his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, 
 &c. severally shall be liable to the overseers of the poor of the 
 city, township, &c. to which any such negro, &c. shall become 
 chargeable, for such necessary expense, with costs of suits there 
 on, as such overseers may be put to, through the neglect of the 
 owner, master or mistress of such negro, &c. notwithstanding 
 the name and other descriptions of such negro, &c. shall not be 
 entered and recorded as aforesaid, unless his or her master or 
 owner shall, before such slave, &c. attain his or her twenty- 
 eighth year, execute and record in the proper county a deed 
 or instrument, securing to such slave, &c. his or her freedom." 
 The introduction of the particle " not," which is italicized, 
 in the above quotation, was supposed to limit the generality and 
 unequivocal meaning of the fifth and tenth sections, as applied to 
 the absolute emancipation of persons born as slaves, and who had 
 not attained the age of twenty-eight years at the date of the 
 act, and whose masters had omitted to register them according to 
 the direction of the fifth section ; and a case of this kind was ac 
 cordingly brought before the supreme court in the year 1789. 
 " Negro Betsey and two others, Cato and Isaac, who were brought 
 before the court by habeas corpus, at the same time, were born 
 before the first day of March, 1780, of parents who were held 
 as slaves for life, when these children were born, but neither 
 the parents nor the children had been registered by the master 
 agreeably to the directions of the fifth section of the act. The 
 parents being more than twenty-eight years of age were admit 
 ted to be free, but their former master claimed to retain the 
 
 with his family in Philadelphia, except at those times when he visited his plan 
 tations in the Southern states. No person is entitled to the protection of the 
 exception, who is a resident in the state, unless he be a member of congress, 
 a minister or consul. But the jury find that the plaintiff was a resident, and 
 was not either a member of congress, a minister or consul. The conclusion is 
 inevitable, &c. I am, therefore, of opinion, that upon this verdict the law is 
 with the defendant." 
 
135 
 
 children, not as slaves for life, but as servants until they should 
 severally attain the age of twenty-eight years." The case was 
 twice argued, yet ultimately a difference of opinion existed in the 
 court a majority of the judges, however, decided against the con 
 struction contended for on behalf of the master, and thus was es 
 tablished the important principle, " That in Pennsylvania, no per 
 son born before the first of March, 1780, although born a slave, 
 unless registered before the first day of November of that year, 
 could be held by his or her former master, either as a slave or 
 as a servant for years, but was absolutely free." See the case, 
 Respublica vs. Negro Betsey, et al, 1 Dallas 9 Reports, 469 
 et seq. 
 
 It was deemed inconsistent with the duty, which, as a member 
 of the Union, Pennsylvania owed to her sister states, to inter 
 fere with what in those states were regarded as rights of pro 
 perty, and, on this account, it was expressly provided, that 
 nothing contained in the act, should give protection to any slave, 
 &c. absconding* from his or her owner, &c. residing in any 
 other state, and coming into this state. See 1 Smith s Laws 
 of Pennsylvania, 492 et seq. 
 
 Such were the leading provisions of the first act which was 
 passed in the United States of America for the abolition of sla 
 very. Its plain intent was to diminish gradually the number of 
 slaves amongst us, and eventually to destroy the institution 
 itself. By the positive terms of its enactments none could there 
 after be born as slaves, and from its whole scope and spirit it 
 
 * Several very important cases have arisen under this section of the act. 
 One of these, reported in the second volume of Sergeant &f Rawle s Reports t page 
 305 et seq. was of this kind: " Mary, a negro woman, the slave of James Corse, 
 of Maryland, absconded from her master, and came into the state of Pennsyl 
 vania, in which, after a residence of about two years, she became the mother 
 of a female child. The owner of the mother claimed the child as his slave, 
 and having obtained possession of her person, committed her to the prison of 
 the city and county of Philadelphia. She was afterwards brought before the 
 Judges of the Supreme Court, by writ of habeas corpus: the sole question be 
 fore the court was, whether birth in Pennsylvania gave freedom to the child 
 of a slave who had absconded from another state before she became pregnant. 
 The court decided in the affirmative, that Eliza (the child) was not a slave, 
 and she was accordingly set at liberty. 
 
136 
 
 was evidently opposed to the introduction of any of this denomi 
 nation of persons from the neighbouring states. On the 29th of 
 March, 1788, it was, however, found necessary for further legis 
 lative aid in the grand cause which had been so nobly entered 
 upon in 1780, and an act was passed on that day, which recites, 
 " for preventing many evils and abuses, arising from ill-disposed 
 persons availing themselves of certain defects in the act for the 
 gradual abolition of slavery, passed on the first day of March, 
 in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty, 
 Be it enacted, That the exception contained in the tenth section 
 of the act of first March, 1780, relative to domestic slaves at 
 tending upon persons passing through or sojourning in this state, 
 and not becoming resident therein, shall not be deemed or taken 
 to extend to the slaves of such persons as are inhabitants of or 
 residents in this state, or who shall come here with an intention 
 to settle and reside ; but all and every slave and slaves who shall 
 be brought into this state, by persons inhabiting or residing 
 therein, or intending to inhabit or reside therein, shall be imme 
 diately considered, deemed and taken to be free, to all intents 
 and purposes." 2 Smith s Laws of Pennsylvania, 443. 
 
 The abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, takes its date one 
 day LATER than the date of the abolition law of Pennsylvania. 
 It was not effected there by a direct and intentionally specific 
 act of the legislature, but resulted as a consequence of the pri 
 mary article in the bill of rights prefixed to the constitution 
 of the state, the language of which article is, " all men are born 
 free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable 
 rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and 
 defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing 
 and protecting property ; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining 
 their safety and happiness." 
 
 This declaration, embodied as it was in the constitution, be 
 came at once the paramount law of the land, and though so 
 totally repugnant to its spirit as well as to its letter, was the 
 enslavement of one part of the human family by another, that, 
 as it appears to me, but one opinion could, with the least show 
 of reason, be entertained on the subject; yet, it was not till after 
 a solemn adjudication of the courts, that slavery was by this 
 
137 
 
 means for ever abolished in Massachusetts, that in practice it 
 was considered so to be. See Winchenden vs. Hat field, 4 Mas 
 sachusetts Reports, 129. 
 
 Connecticut appears to have been the earliest among her sis 
 ter states to follow the precedent of Pennsylvania. At a special 
 session held in January, 1784, for the purpose of revising and 
 amending her code of laws, the legislature agreed to incorporate 
 this section: "No negro or mulatto child, that shall after the 
 first day of March, 1784, be born within this state, shall be held 
 in servitude longer than until they arrive to the age of twenty- 
 five years, notwithstanding the mother or parent of such child 
 was held in servitude at the time of its birth, but such child, at 
 the age aforesaid, shall be free," &c. See Statutes of Connecti 
 cut, 625. 
 
 Probably about the same time (the precise date is not men 
 tioned in the work which is in my possession) the legislature 
 of Rhode Island enacted a law on the same subject, varying 
 in a slight degree from that of Connecticut, yet fixing the 
 same day as the period at which hereditary servitude should 
 cease, as the subjoined extract will show: " No person born 
 within this state, on or after the first day of March, A. D. 1784, 
 shall be deemed or considered a servant for life or a slave, and 
 all servitude for life or slavery of children to be born as afore 
 said, in consequence of the condition of their mothers, be and 
 the same is hereby taken away, extinguished and for ever abo 
 lished." 1 Laws of Rhode Island, 443 "Jin act relative, to 
 slaves, and their manumission and support," 8. 
 
 The importation of slaves into the state of Connecticut having 
 been prohibited in October, 1774, and in Rhode Island, it is 
 believed, at a period equally remote, the entire abolition of 
 slavery in these states, as well as in Pennsylvania, may be now 
 considered as virtually accomplished. 
 
 New Hampshire having in her constitution, which was finally 
 ratified on the eighth day of February, 1792, inserted a provi 
 sion of similar import, and comprised indeed in nearly the same 
 words with that already cited from the constitution of Massa 
 chusetts, has by implication also, abolished slavery within her 
 territory. 
 
 18 
 
138 
 
 The same important doctrine previously promulgated, as it is 
 well known to have been, in the memorable Declaration of our 
 Independence on Great Britain, has served the like glorious 
 purpose in the state of Vermont. The citizens of Vermont, 
 however, were not content with implication on such a moment 
 ous article of their political faith, but wisely established, by 
 distinct enunciation, the inference as well as the principle 
 which they so justly revered. I give the whole article, not 
 withstanding it enters more into detail than is altogether neces 
 sary. " That all men are born equally free and independent, 
 and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst 
 which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, 
 possessing and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining 
 happiness and safety ; THEREFORE, no male person born in this 
 country or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law to 
 serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives 
 to the age of twenty-one years, nor female, in like manner, after 
 she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound 
 by their own consent after they arrive at such age, or bound by 
 law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs or the like." 
 See the Constitution of Vermont, chap. 1, art. 1. The date 
 of the constitution is July 4th, 1793. 
 
 The first act of the state of New York on this subject, was 
 designed to work a gradual abolition of slavery in that state. It 
 bears date the 29th day of March, 1799, and provides, That all 
 children born of slaves after the 4th of July, 1799, should be held 
 by the owner of the mothers of the same only until they should 
 respectively attain to the age of twenty-eight years, if males; and 
 if females, until to the age of twenty-five years. Another act, of 
 similar import so far as respects the point under examination, 
 was passed JZpril 8, 1801. But by an act of the Slstof March, 
 one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, a final blow was 
 given in that state to the dominion of the slave-holder. The 
 fourth section of this act is as follows: " Every child born of a 
 slave within this state, after the fourth day of July, in the year of 
 our LORD one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, shall be 
 free, but shall remain the servant of the owner of his or her mo 
 ther, and the executors, administrators or assigns of such ownrr. 
 
139 
 
 in the same manner as if such child had been bound to service, 
 by the overseers of the poor, and shall continue in such service, 
 if a male, until the age of twenty-eight years, and if a female, 
 until the age of twenty-five years ; and every child born of a 
 slave within this state, after the passing of this act, shall remain 
 a servant as aforesaid, until the age of twenty-one years, and no 
 longer." And by the thirty-second section of the same act, it 
 was declared, that " Every negro, mulatto or mustee, within 
 this state, born before the fourth day of July, 1799, should, from 
 and after the fourth day of July , 1827, BE FREE." This au 
 spicious day has gone by, and there is, therefore, at this moment, 
 not a slave within the wide spread territory of this prosperous 
 state. 
 
 After several ineffectual* efforts on the part of the advocates 
 of human rights, an act was at length obtained, on the 14th day 
 of February 1804, from the legislature of New Jersey, entitled 
 "An act for the gradual abolition of slavery." It differs in no 
 thing material, to the present inquiry, from the law of Rhode 
 Island, except that white male children born of slaves, after 
 the 4th day of July 1804, may be retained as servants by the 
 owners of their mothers, until the age of twenty-five years only, 
 and female children, in like manner, until the age of twenty- 
 one years only. See Revised Laws of New Jersey, 679. 
 
 The three non-slave-holding states, Ohio, Indiana and Illi 
 nois, it is well known, derive this important characteristic from 
 the " ordinance for the government of the territory of the 
 United States, north west of the river Ohio," which was rati 
 fied by Congress July 13th, 1787. The ordinance recites and 
 adopts certain articles, previously agreed upon by the states of 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, in the 
 compact! by which these states ceded the North Western Ter- 
 
 * One of these efforts was frustrated by a single vote in the house of assem 
 bly. This was six years before the passing of the law in the text. 
 
 f Notwithstanding the solemnity with which this compact was originally en 
 tered into, and afterwards ratified by the Congress of the United States, and 
 notwithstanding, also, the plain and strong prohibition of slavery contained 
 in the sixth article, a violent endeavour was made, several years since, in HU- 
 nois t to obtain a convention of delegates, in order to expunge the prohibition 
 inserted in the constitution of that state !! 
 
140 
 
 ritory to the federal government. The articles alluded to are 
 styled, "Articles of compact between the original states and 
 the people and states within the said territory, for ever to re 
 main unalterable, unless by common consent," the sixth of 
 which provides, " There shall be neither slavery nor involun 
 tary servitude in said territory, otherwise than in the punish 
 ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly con 
 victed." 
 
 The citizens of Ohio duly appreciating the valuable guaranty 
 thus conferred upon them, manifested an accordant spirit with 
 the framers of the ordinance and the parties to the compact, and 
 to prevent any undue advantage from being obtained of colour 
 ed persons, in addition to the condition contained in the ordi 
 nance, saw fit to embody the following excellent provision in 
 their constitution " Nor shall any indenture of any negro or 
 mulatto, hereafter made and executed out of this state, or if 
 made in the state, where the term of service exceeds one year, 
 be of the least validity, except those given in the case of appren 
 ticeships." Const, of Ohio, Art. 8, 2. A provision in almost 
 the same words is inserted in the constitution of Illinois, Art. 
 6, 1, and also in the constitution of Indiana, with the omis 
 sion, in the latter, of the w r ords, "or if made in the state." 
 Const, of Indiana, Art. 11, 7. 
 
 The state of Maine is the only remaining non-slave-holding 
 state. As the territory of which it is composed, was a part of 
 the state of Massachusetts, until within a few years since, 
 Maine, as a distinct sovereignty, has never been contaminated 
 with slavery. Her constitution, moreover, adopted October 
 29, 1819, by a convention chosen for the purpose by the free 
 men within the limits of her territory, and ratified by Con 
 gress on March 2nd, 1821, contains the same grand declaration 
 of unalienable rights, which gave unconditional freedom to all 
 slaves within the parent state. See Const, of Maine, Art. 1, 1. 
 
 It will be observed from the notices here given, that the abo 
 lition of slavery in the states abovementioned, has been of two 
 kinds; gradual and immediate. In those states in which it 
 has been gradual, prejudice, the effect of long established prac 
 tice, and the spirit of gain which so frequently overpowers the 
 
141 
 
 sense of justice, have usually made a difference in the condition 
 of the white population and of such of the coloured as have been 
 exempted from slavery for life, unfavourable to the rights and 
 happiness of the latter. Thus in Pennsylvania, by the 4th sec 
 tion of the abolition act, it is enacted, "That every negro or 
 mulatto child born within this state, after the passing of this 
 act, &c. (who would, in case this act had not been made, have 
 been born a servant for years or life or a slave,) shall be deemed 
 to be, and shall be, by virtue of this act, the servant of such per 
 son or his or her assigns, who would, in such case, have been en 
 titled to the service of such child, until such child shall attain 
 unto the age of twenty-eight years, in the manner and on 
 the conditions whereon servants bound by indenture for four 
 years, are or may be retained and holden, &c. &c."* So in 
 Connecticut, according to the section already extracted, the 
 same class of persons might be held, not as servants bound 
 by indenture, but as slaves, until they should arrive at twenty- 
 five years of age. At the present time, the law there is some 
 what different, it having been enacted in May, 1797, that, "no 
 negro or mulatto child born within this state after the first day 
 of August, 1797, shall be held in servitude longer than until he 
 arrives to the age of twenty-one years, &c. but that such child 
 at the age aforesaid, shall be free." Statutes of Connecticut, 
 626. Accordant with this latter section of the laws of Connec 
 ticut, is the law of Rhode Island. See Laws of Rhode Island, 
 443, section 9th of "the act relative to slaves, #c." 
 
 * The want of precision in the phraseology used in this section, seems to 
 have induced an opinion with some persons, that the servitude for twenty-eight 
 years which is authorized by this section, was not confined to the immediate, 
 offspring of those who were slaves at the date of the abolition act, but was de 
 signed to be extended to their DESCENDANTS, if duly registered, to the remotest 
 generation. The case of the Commonwealth vs. Barker, 11 Sergt. and Rawk, 
 Rep. 360, presented this point for the decison of the court, but, as the registry 
 was defective, the court, on the ground of this defect alone, ordered the person 
 claimed as such servant to be discharged, declaring, at the same time, that the 
 former was a point of great importance, upon which no opinion was intimated. 
 But in a later case, in which the evaded point came again before the same court,, 
 it was decided that the species of servitude alluded to, did not extend beyond 
 the immediate offspring of slaves that the children of coloured servants were 
 In this particular, on the same footing with the children of white persons. 
 
142 
 
 In New York, by the acts of 1799 and of 1801, every child 
 born of a slave within the state, after the 4th of July, 1799, was 
 declared to be free, but might be retained by the owner of the 
 mother, &c. as a servant, in the same manner as if bound to 
 service by the overseers of the poor; if a male, until he should 
 arrive to the age of twenty-eight years of age, and if a female 
 until twenty-Jive years of age. This section was re-enacted by 
 the act of 31st of March, 1817, with this important supplement, 
 that every such child born after the passing of the last act, should 
 " remain a servant as aforesaid until the age of twenty-one years 
 and no longer." So that the only distinction which now exists 
 on this subject, in the state of New York, between the condi 
 tion of the w T hite population and the children born of slaves since 
 the 31st March, 1817, is, that females as well as males may be 
 held as servants till they attain the age of twenty-one years in 
 stead of being freed at the age of eighteen years. 
 
 The abolition act of New Jersey conforms to the precedent 
 of Pennsylvania with respect to the general principle here ad 
 verted to, yet humanely diminishes the period of servitude to 
 twenty-five years in the case of males, and to twenty-unc in the 
 case of females. 
 
 The term gradual in its usual acceptation as applied to the 
 abolition of slavery, and as it is to be understood in the acts of 
 assembly before quoted, as also in the remarks which I have 
 made upon them, is restricted in its signification to the extinc 
 tion of slavery, by depriving it of its hereditary quality. A 
 gradual abolition act operates to prevent the enslavement of 
 the unborn, while it leaves unaffected the condition of those al 
 ready in being. Such were the abolition acts of Pennsylvania, 
 Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the first two abo 
 lition acts of the state of New York. But a measure which 
 communicates freedom to those previous to, and at the time of 
 its adoption, held as slaves, is here called immediate, whether 
 such freedom be conferred instantaneously or whether it be 
 postponed to a point of time future in relation to the date of the 
 measure. This distinction comprehends the last abolition act of 
 New York, as also, the constitutional provisions of Massachu 
 setts, New Hampshire and Vermont, and the sixth article of the; 
 
143 
 
 ordinance of congress of 1787, for the government of the terri- 
 tory north-west of the Ohio. 
 
 Slaves being considered property, it has been said, an im 
 mediate abolition act like that of New York, would be uncon 
 stitutional, unless compensation should be made to their for 
 mer owners to the extent of their value. But men, as such, by 
 nature, are equally free; it is impossible, therefore, that one can 
 acquire a right over the person of another unless by his consent. 
 Involuntary servitude, unless inflicted by society as the punish 
 ment of crime, is a usurpation of power, and it would be 
 strange if society at its pleasure might not put an end to its 
 own wrong. On a theme so hackneyed, however, it is unneces 
 sary to waste argument; and happily in the state of New York, 
 a new constitution has been adopted since the passing of the 
 abolition act, and the acts of the legislature in force at the adop 
 tion of the constitution, have been expressly declared in that 
 instrument to be valid. The abolition act, therefore, may be 
 regarded as a part of the present constitution itself. 
 
 The abolition of slavery in Massachusetts and New Hamp 
 shire was effected as has been stated, by force of the first arti 
 cle of the declaration of rights prefixed to their respective con 
 stitutions. In Massachusetts, an express decision of the Supreme 
 Court of that state, has established this constrnction. No un 
 prejudiced intelligence can, I believe, find fault with this deci 
 sion. The language of the article must be wrested from its pro 
 per and obvious signification to give countenance to any other 
 conclusion. And yet, in Pennsylvania, the birth place of ef 
 ficient hostility to negro bondage, the highest judicial tribunal 
 of the state, has pronounced as the result of its solemn delibera 
 tion on a similar article of her constitution, that slavery was 
 not inconsistent with it* This mockery of justice took place 
 
 * This case is not to be found in the books o reports. It may, therefore, 
 be proper to give some further notice of it. It was instituted in the Supreme 
 Court, to January term, 1795, by a writ de hominc repkgiando, and is entitled 
 on the docket, negro Flora vs. Joseph Graisberry. The defendant having died, 
 his executors, John Reed and James Glentworth, were substituted agreeably 
 to an act of assembly providing for such contingencies. On the 15th of De 
 cember, 1797, the trial came on, when a special verdict was found by the jury, 
 
144 
 
 so recently as the twenty-third day of January, in the year of 
 our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two. It took place 
 after the most able and ample discussion by counsel. It was not 
 suddenly cast forth in the hurry of a nisi prius trial, and by a 
 single judge, but the record is stamped with the unanimous 
 sanction of seven men claiming to be in the full possession of 
 intellectual faculties of no common order, and acting upon ma 
 ture consideration. Such are the deplorable effects of long fa 
 miliarity with injustice and oppression. 
 
 General principles of political government, militating against 
 the existence of slavery, are asserted in the constitutions of most 
 of the slave-holding states ; yet care has been taken to qualify 
 their bearing by some express declaration, importing that the 
 rights of freemen only were designed to be protected. The 
 constitution of the state of Delaware, though a slave-holding 
 state, seems to have been framed with somewhat less caution on 
 this subject. It sets forth, that, " Through Divine goodness, 
 all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving 
 their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ; OF 
 
 ENJOYING AND DEFENDING LIFE AND LIBERTY ; of acquiring 
 
 and protecting reputation and property; and, in general, of 
 attaining objects suitable to their condition WITHOUT INJURY 
 BY ONE TO ANOTHER." Here we have a charter of liberty of 
 sufficient amplitude. How far it may be considered as annihi- 
 
 on the suggestion and by the consent of counsel, and at March term, 1798, 
 judgment was entered for the defendant, " for the purpose," as is stated in 
 the record, " of an appeal to the High Court of Errors and Appeals, and that 
 the justices of this court may there assist in hearing and determining it." On the 
 20th January, 1802, the hearing took place before the High Court of Errors and- 
 Appeals. Jared Ingersoll, William Rawle, and William Lewis, Esquires, were of 
 counsel witli the plaintiff, and from the known character of these gentlemen, 
 it is to be inferred, that during the four days which were occupied in the hear 
 ing, no argument which ingenuity and learning could supply was wanting. 
 The judges with a reserve more convenient to themselves than convincing to 
 their hearers, were content with the brief declaration, announced through their 
 President, " that it was their unanimous opinion, slavery was not inconsistent 
 with any clause of the constitution of Pennsylvania;" in conformity with which, 
 judgment was entered on the record, * court unanimously of opinion, that 
 negro Flora is a slave, and that she is the property of the defendants in error, 
 and the judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed." 
 
145 
 
 lated by what follows in connexion, " and as these rights are 
 essential to their welfare, for the due exercise thereof, power is 
 inherent in them, and therefore, all just authority in the insti 
 tutions of a political society, is derived from the people, and 
 established with their consent to advance their happiness, and 
 they may, for this end, as circumstances require, from time to 
 time, alter their constitution of government," will depend very 
 much on the moral sentiments of those who pass judgment upon 
 the question. 
 
 Section II. ON THE LAWS REGULATING THE EMANCIPATION 
 OP SLAVES. 
 
 Slavery being hereditary, may, of consequence, be rendered 
 perpetual, if such be the will of the master of the slave. From 
 a just consideration of the rights of property, it would seem 
 equally plain, that the master might, at his pleasure, relinquish 
 his dominion over the slave. But society, in our slave-holding 
 states, has decreed otherwise. Having degraded a rational 
 and immortal being into a chattel a thing of bargain and sale 
 it has been discovered that certain incidents result from this 
 degradation, which it concerns the welfare of the community 
 vigorously to exact and preserve. One of these is, that the 
 master s benevolence to his unhappy bondman, is not to be exer- 
 cisecl, by emancipation, without the consent of his creditor. 
 This is a principle of law which pervades nearly every code in 
 the slave-holding states. In some of these codes, express en 
 actment cannot be cited for it; yet I think it probable, unless 
 with the single exception of North Carolina,* that practically it 
 is made so to operate. 
 
 * In North Carolina, a slave, as will be shown hereafter, cannot be emanci 
 pated except for meritorious services, to be adjudged of and allowed by the 
 court. Haywood s Manual, 537 (act 0/1796.) The act is silent as to the rights 
 of creditors, and I infer; therefore, that the claims for meritoriow services, are^ 
 deemed paramount to the rights of third persons, whether creditors or other j 
 wise interested. In South Carolina, in Georgia, and in Alabama, the legislai 
 ture only, by special acts, have authority to emancipate slaves. Of course, th< 
 clause may be, and no doubt always is, inserted to preserve these supposed 
 rights. 
 
 19 
 
146 
 
 In Virginia and Mississippi, an emancipated slave may be 
 taken in execution to satisfy any debt contracted by the person 
 emancipating him, previous to such emancipation. 1 Rev. ( Vir.) 
 Code, 434 ; Mississippi Rev. Code, 386. In Kentucky, the 
 act which authorizes emancipation, and directs the mode by 
 which it may be effected, contains a saving of the rights of 
 creditors, &c. 2 Lift. fy Swi. 1155, sect. 27, act of 1798. 
 
 By the new civil code of Louisiana, it is declared, "Any en 
 franchisement made in fraud of creditors, or of the portion re 
 served by law to forced heirs, is null and void; and such fraud 
 shall be considered as PROVED, when it shall appear that at 
 the moment of executing the enfranchisement, THE PERSON 
 
 GRANTING IT HAD NOT SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO PAY HIS 
 
 DEBTS." Jirt. 190. 
 
 But in addition to the obstacles to emancipation which is cre 
 ated by the saving in favour of creditors, a very extraordinary 
 oneMS opposed on behalf of the widows of deceased slave-hold 
 ers. For where a widow is entitled by law to one-third of her 
 deceased husband s personal estate, unless he shall have left 
 sufficient other personal estate, after payment of his debts, to 
 satisfy her claim of one-third, his slaves, though declared to be 
 free by his last will, shall nevertheless not be free, but shall be 
 held liable for the third to which the widow is entitled. 1 Vir. 
 Rev. Code, 435; Mississippi Rev. Code, 386; 2 Litt. fy Swi. 
 (Kentucky} 1246. 
 
 But it is in the mode by which emancipation is to be effected, 
 that the most formidable difficulties arise. In South Carolina,* 
 
 * In South Carolina, before the passing of the act of 1820, here referred to, 
 the law stood thus: " No emancipation of any slave shall be valid, except it 
 be by deed, and according to the regulations above described, (which regu 
 lations made it necessary for the person intending to emancipate a slave, to 
 obtam the approbation of a justice of the quorum and five freeholders,) and 
 accompanied by the above certificate," (i. e. the certificate of the justice and 
 freeholders.) 2 Srevard s Digest, 256. With such strictness was this law con 
 strued, that where a testator made a bequest of slaves to a trustee, with direc 
 tions to liberate them, it was held by the court of chancery to be a void bequest, 
 and that therefore the slaves might be retained in perpetual servitude. See 
 he case of Byrnum vs. Bostwich, 4 Dessaussurtfs Chancery Reports* 266. 
 
147 
 
 Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, it is only by authority of the 
 legislature specially granted, that a valid emancipation can be 
 made. It is not enough that a penalty is imposed upon the be 
 nevolence of a master who may permit his slave to work for 
 himself; a slave-owner must continue a slave-owner, (unless he 
 dispose of his chattels by sale,) until he can induce the legisla 
 ture to indulge him in the wish to set the captives free. Prince s 
 Digest, 456 (act of Dec. 5, 1801); James* Digest, 398 (act of 
 1820); Toulmin s Digest, 632; Mississippi Rev. Code, 386, 
 In Georgia, the attempt to set free a slave, by any other 
 mode than by an application to the legislature, is visited with 
 severe penalties, as will appear from the following act: " If any 
 person or persons shall, after the passing of this act, 1801,) set 
 free any slave or slaves, in any other manner and form than the 
 one prescribed herein, (i. e. by special legislative act,) he shall 
 forfeit for every such offence two hundred dollars, to be reco 
 vered by action of debt, or indictment, the one half to be applied 
 to the use of the county in which the offence may have been 
 committed, the other half to the use of the informer, and the 
 said slave or slaves so manumitted and set free, shall be still to 
 all intents and purposes as much in a state of slavery as before 
 they were manumitted and set free by the party or parties so 
 offending." Prince s Digest,^!. Notwithstanding the punish 
 ment thus imposed for this new crime which the Christian people 
 of the republic of Georgia have seen fit to create, in the nineteenth 
 century, some refractory heretic, it is presumed, must have been 
 found within her borders, for in the year 1818, the following 
 act was added to her code: "All and every will and testament, 
 deed, whether by way of trust or otherwise, contract or agree 
 ment or stipulation, or other instrument in writing, or by parole, 
 made and executed for the purpose of effecting or endeavouring 
 to effect the manumission of any slave or slaves, either directly 
 by conferring or attempting to confer freedom on such slave or 
 slaves, or indirectly or virtually, by allowing and securing or at 
 tempting to allow and secure to such slave or slaves the right or 
 privilege of working for his, her or themselves, free from the 
 control of the master or owner of such slave or slaves, or of en 
 joying the profits of his, her or their labour or skill, shall be and 
 
148 
 
 the same are hereby declared to be utterly null and void: and 
 the person or persons so making, &c. any such deed, &c. &c. 
 and all and every person or persons concerned in giving or at- 
 attempting to give effect thereto, whether by accepting the trust 
 thereby created or attempted to be created, or in any other way 
 or manner whatsoever, shall be severally liable to a penalty not 
 exceeding one thousand dollars, to be recovered, &c. &c. and 
 each and every slave or slaves in whose behalf such will or tes 
 tament, &c. &c. shall have been made, shall be liable to be 
 arrested by warrant under the hand and seal of any magistrate 
 of this state, and being thereof convicted, &c. shall be liable to 
 be sold as a slave or slaves, by public outcry, and the proceeds 
 of such sales shall be appropriated, &c. &c." Prince s Digest, 
 466. 
 
 By an act of the General Assembly of North Carolina, in 
 1777, it is enacted, "That no negro or mulatto slave shall here 
 after be set free, except for meritorious services to be adjudged 
 of and allowed by the County Court, and license first had and 
 obtained thereupon: and when any slave is or shall be set free 
 by his or her master or owner, otherwise than is herein before 
 directed, it shall and may be lawful for any freeholder in this 
 state to apprehend and take up such slave and deliver him or 
 her to the sheriff of the county, who, upon receiving such slave, 
 shall give such freeholder a receipt for the same, and the sheriff 
 shall commit all such slaves to the jail of the county, there to 
 remain until the next court to be held for that county; and the 
 court of the county shall order all such confined slaves to be sold, 
 during the term, to the highest bidder." Hay wood s Manual, 525. 
 The sheriff is directed five days before the time appointed for the 
 sale of the emancipated negro, to give notice in writing to the per- 
 vson by whom the emancipation was made, to the end that such per_ 
 son may, if he thinks proper, renew his claim to the negro so 
 emancipated by him, on failure to do which, the sale is to be made 
 by the sheriff, and one fifth part of the nett proceeds is to be 
 come the property of the freeholder by whom the apprehension 
 tvas made, and the remaining four fifths are to be paid into the 
 public treasury. Ibid, 525-6, and see act of 1788, ibid, 529, 
 also act of 1796, ibid, 537. 
 
149 
 
 The same law obtained in Tennessee till Nov. 13, 1801, when 
 a new act was passed, authorizing the court to emancipate slaves 
 upon a presentation of a petition for that purpose, with the 
 proviso, that "the reasons set forth in said petition, shall, in 
 the opinion of the court, be consistent with the ,interest"and po 
 licy of the state. " Tenn. Laws, act of 1801, chap. 27. The 
 usual, and, I suppose, necessary precaution of requiring a bond 
 from the emancipator, to indemnify the public against any charge 
 which might accrue for the support of the emancipated slave, 
 in case he should be disqualified from labour by sickness or the 
 infirmities of age, is exacted in this act. 
 
 Mississippi has combined in one act all the obstacles to eman 
 cipation which are to be met with in the laws of the other slave- 
 holding states. Thus, the emancipation must be by an instru 
 ment in writing, a last will or deed, &c. under seal, attested 
 by at least two credible ivitnesses, or acknowledged in the 
 court of the county or corporation, where the emancipator re 
 sides, proof satisfactory to the General Assembly must be 
 adduced that the slave has done some meritorious act for the 
 benefit of his master, or rendered some distinguished service 
 to the state; all which circumstances are but pre-requisites, 
 and are of no efficacy until a special act of assembly sanctions 
 the emancipation; to which may be added, as has been already 
 stated, a saving of the rights of creditors and the protection of 
 the widow s thirds. Mississippi Rev. Code, 385-6, (act of 
 June 18, 1822.) 
 
 In Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland, greater fa 
 cility is afforded to emancipation. The first named of these 
 states, enacted in 1798 the following law, which continues still 
 in force: "It shall be lawful for any person by his or her last 
 will and testament, or by any other instrument in writing, 
 under his or her hand and seal, attested and proved in the coun 
 ty court by two witnesses or acknowledged by the party in the 
 court of the county where he or she resides, to emancipate or 
 set free his or her slave or slaves, who shall thereupou be entire 
 ly and fully discharged from the] performance of any contract 
 entered into during their servitude, and enjoy their full free 
 dom as if they had been born free. And the said court shall 
 
150 
 
 have full power to demand bond and sufficient security of the 
 emancipator, his or her executors, &c. for the maintenance of 
 any slave or slaves that may be aged or infirm either of body or 
 mind, to prevent him, her, or them becoming chargeable to the 
 county ; and every slave so emancipated shall have a certificate 
 of his freedom from the clerk of such court on parchment, with 
 the county seal affixed thereto, Sue. saving, however, the rights 
 of creditors, &c. &c." 2 Litt. fy Swi. 1155. And in 1800, in 
 consequence of a humane law particularly noticed in a previous 
 page* of this sketch, by which slaves were constituted real estate, 
 and therefore, so far as concerns the law of descents, not sub 
 ject to disposition by the will of a minor, or by a deed exe 
 cuted by him, an act was passed to remove this impediment, 
 declaring, "That any person of the age of eighteen years, being 
 possessed of or having a right to any slave or slaves, may, by 
 his last will and testament, or by an instrument in writing, 
 emancipate such slave or slaves. 7 Ibid, 1247. 
 
 The law of Missouri on this subject bears so close an analogy 
 to the law of Kentucky of 1798, as not to call for a particular re 
 cital. See 2 Missouri Laws, 744. 
 
 In Virginia, the law of emancipation has undergone many 
 changes since the year 1699, when the first legislative interposi- 
 sition happened. By an act of that year, the emancipation of 
 any negro or mulatto slave, was rendered nugatory unless the 
 emancipator should send his freedman out of the country 
 within six months from the time of his emancipation; and in 
 default of so doing, the church wardens were authorized to ap 
 prehend and sell him. 3 Henning s Statutes, 87. Another 
 act was passed in 1723, forbidding emancipation, except for me 
 ritorious services to be adjudged of by the governor and council. 
 4 ibid, 132. This latter act was superseded in 1782, by the 
 introduction of one nearly similar, which is now in force in 
 this state, and which in many essential points has been closely 
 followed in the law of Kentucky of 1798, as above transcribed. 
 See 1 Rev. Code, ( Virginia, 433-4. ) In one rospect, and that 
 too of a most important character, the law of Virginia differs 
 from the law of Kentucky. I allude to the inhuman provision 
 
 * See supra, note f p. 23, 
 
151 
 
 adverted to in the first part of this sketch, by which an emanci 
 pated negro, being more than twenty-one years of age, who shall 
 continue within the state more than twelve months after his 
 right to freedom shall have accrued, may be again reduced to 
 slavery!! Ibid, 436.* 
 
 The existing law of Marylaud on this subject, takes its date 
 from the act of 1796, chap. 67; the 29th section of which is in 
 these words: "Where any person or persons possessed of any 
 slave or slaves within this state, who are or shall be of healthy 
 constitutions , and sound in mind and body, capable by labour 
 to procure to him or them sufficient food and raiment, with the 
 requisite necessaries of life, and not exceeding forty-five years 
 of age, andt such person or persons possessing such slave or 
 slaves as aforesaid, may by writing, under his, her or their hand 
 and seal, evidenced by two good and sufficient witnesses at least, 
 grant to such slave or slaves, his, her or their freedom; and any 
 deed or writing whereby freedom shall be given or granted to 
 any such slave, which shall be intended to take place in future,! 
 shall be good to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatso 
 ever, from the time that such freedom or manumission is intend- 
 
 * See supra, page 18. 
 
 f The word and, though in the law, should be striken out. 
 
 t. In a case of this kind, where a future point of time is fixed at which the 
 slave is to be free, it is plain, he ought to be regarded not as an absolute slave, 
 but merely bound to a servitude for years. According to the maxim, that the 
 condition of the issue depends upon the condition of the mother, it would, 
 therefore, follow, that the issue of female slaves so circumstanced, and born 
 during the period of their mother s servitude for years, should not be considered 
 slaves for life. Whether such issue should be held as slaves for life, or should 
 be regarded as free, seems not to have been well settled by the courts. To 
 remove all doubt on this subject, as on some other nearly similar cases, " that 
 from and after the first day of February, 1810, if any negro or mulatto female 
 slave, by testament, or last will, or deed of manumission, shall be declared to 
 be free after any given period of service, or at any stipulated age, or upon the 
 performance of any condition, or on the event of any contingency, it shall be 
 lawful for the person making such last will, &c. 8cc. to fix and determine in 
 the same, the state and condition of the issue that may be born of such negro 
 or mulatto female slave during their period of service." So far the act is ju 
 dicious, but in the next section, it is provided, that in the event, that, the tes 
 tator, &c. shall not determine the condition of the issue so born, they shall be 
 esteemed slaves for life. . . Maryland Laws, net of Nov. 1809, ch. 171. 
 
152 
 
 ed to commence by the said deed or writing, so that such deed 
 and writing be not in prejudice of creditors, and that such slave, 
 at the time such freedom or manumission shall take place or com 
 mence, be not above the age aforesaid, and be able to work and 
 gain a sufficient livelihood and maintenance, according to the 
 true intent and meaning of this act, which instrument of writing 
 shall be acknowledged before one justice of the peace of the 
 county wherein the person or persons so granting such freedom 
 shall reside, which justice shall endorse on the back of such in 
 strument the time of the acknowledgment, and the party mak 
 ing the same, which he or they, or the parties concerned, shall 
 cause to be entered among the records of the county court, where 
 the person or persons granting such freedom shall reside, within 
 six months after the date of such instrument of writing, and the 
 clerk of the respective county courts within the state, shall im 
 mediately upon the receipt of such instrument, endorse the time 
 of his receiving the same, and shall well and truly enrol such 
 deed or instrument in a good and sufficient book, in folio, to be 
 regularly alphabeted in the names of both parties, and to remain 
 in the custody of the said clerk for the time being, among the 
 records of the respective county courts; and that the said clerk 
 shall on the back of every such instrument, in a full, legible 
 hand, make an endorsement of such enrolment, and also of the 
 folio of the book, in which the same shall be enrolled, and to 
 such endorsement set his hand, the person or persons requiring 
 such entry paying the usual and legal fees for the same." Eman 
 cipation is also authorized by the same act, to be made by last 
 will and testament, subject to the same restrictions which are 
 imposed in case the emancipation is effected by deed, &c. agree 
 ably to the above section. Ibid, 13.* 
 
 The state of Louisiana, directs emancipation to be made in the 
 
 * In this state, a slave may be manumitted by implication contained in a last 
 will and testament. As by a devise of real, or a bequest of personal property 
 to a slave by his owner. See Hall vs. Mullin, 5 Harris & Johnson s Meports, 190. 
 In North and South Carolina, it will be recollected, such a devise or bequest, 
 so far from entitling the slave to freedom, is held to be utterly void. The de 
 cision in Maryland is, however, in conformity with the law of villanage, as well 
 as to the civil law. See Coke IMt, tit. ViUunage, 205. 
 
153 
 
 manner set forth in the following Articles of her new civil code: 
 "a master may manumit his slave in this state, either hy an act, 
 inter vivos, or by a disposition made in prospect of death, pro 
 vided such manumission be made with the forms and under the 
 conditions prescribed by law; but an enfranchisement, when 
 made by a last will, must be express and formal, and shall not 
 be implied by any other circumstances of the testament, such as 
 a legacy, an institution of heir, testamentary executorship, or 
 other dispositions of this nature, which in such case shall be con 
 sidered as if they had not been made." Jirt. 184. The manner 
 to be observed by the emancipator, (when the emancipation is 
 not by a last will,) is thus delineated: " The master who wishes 
 to emancipate his slave, is bound to make a declaration of his 
 intention to the judge of the parish where he resides; the judge 
 must order notice of it to be published during forty days by ad 
 vertisement posted at the door of the court house, and if at the 
 expiration of this delay, no opposition be made, he shall author 
 ize the master to pass the act of emancipation." *ftrt. 187. The 
 general powers thus conferred, are subject nevertheless, to 
 these limitations: "No one can emancipate his slave unless the 
 slave has attained the age of thirty years,* and has behaved 
 well at least for four years preceding his emancipation;" Art. 
 185, except " a slave who has saved the life of his master, his 
 master s wife or one of his children," for such a one " may 
 be emancipated at any age." Art. 186. 
 
 * The bearing of this law, has given rise to a private act of the assembly of 
 Louisiana, which, to one accustomed to consider freedom as among the impre 
 scriptible rights of rational creatures, may seem inexplicable. The act alluded 
 to, is entitled, t( an act to authorize the manumission of certain slaves," and 
 contains the following recital and enactment. " Whereas Maria Martha, a free 
 woman of colour, of the parish of West Baton Rouge, has presented a petition 
 to the legislature, praying to be authorized to manumit two of her children, one 
 named Terence, of twenty-six years of age, and the other Valery, of twenty-four 
 years of age, both being her own property, and begotten whilst the said Maria 
 Martha was in the bonds of slavery; and whereas, in conformity of the existing 
 laws of this state, slaves cannot be manumitted until they have attained a 
 certain age, therefore, be it enacted, &c. that the said Maria Martha, &c, be 
 and she is hereby authorized to manumit her two children, 8cc. &c." See acts 
 of assembly of Louisiana in the year 1823, page 36. 
 
 20 
 
154 
 
 While treating on the subject of emancipation, with reference 
 to the laws of Louisiana, it is due to the framers of the new civil 
 code, as well as to the legislature and people by whom it has 
 been adopted, to notice distinctly several provisions in this code, 
 which evidence greater benevolence to the slave than is usually 
 exhibited in slave-holding countries. Thus, to meet a case 
 which may frequently occur, it is an article of the code, that 
 " the child born of a woman after she has acquired the right of 
 being free at a. future time, follows the condition of the mother, 
 and becomes free AT THE TIME FIXED for her enfranchisement) 
 even though the mother should die before that time." *ftrt. 
 196. Again, "The slave who has acquired the right of being 
 free at a future time, is, from that time, (i. e. the period when 
 the right is acquired,) capable of receiving by testament or do 
 nation. Property given or devised to him, must be preserved 
 for him, in order to be delivered to him in kind, when his eman 
 cipation shall take place. In the mean time, it must be admi 
 nistered by a curator." J2rt. 193. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 OP THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO SLAVERY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ON THE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO CONGRESS, &C. 
 
 THE introduction of negro slavery into this country was, as it 
 has been already stated, a part of the colonial policy of Great 
 Britain. It has been also stated, that long before, and at the 
 era of our independence, it existed to some extent, in each of 
 the original states of the Union. It was an institution, the evils 
 of which, at this latter period, in particular, were severely felt, 
 while its incompatibility with the principles of a republican 
 government was too palpable not to be generally perceived and 
 acknowledged. Prevailing, however, as was the case, in some 
 states much more than in others, it was the dictate of sound 
 policy, on the part of the FIRST Congress, to leave the whole 
 subject unaffected by any national measure. Accordingly, when 
 the original draught of the Declaration of Independence was 
 presented to that body, a portion of this instrument, which 
 reprobated in strong language the conduct of the mother country 
 in relation to the slave population, was entirely stricken out. And 
 afterwards, in 1778, when the articles of confederation between 
 the several states were adopted, the topic of slavery was again 
 carefully excluded. But when the perils of the revolutionary 
 conflict were over, and peace invited the exercise of patriotism, 
 
156 
 
 philanthropy and religion, in the formation of a more stable 
 and more perfect system of government, by which were to be 
 reconciled the jarring elements incident to a wide-spread coun 
 try, peopled by inhabitants whose education, whose interests 
 and whose religious creeds were different, the consideration of 
 slavery was forced upon the convention. Politically speaking, 
 a majority of the states would have been benefited had the same 
 caution been observed with respect to the Constitution, which 
 had been pursued in reference to the Declaration of Indepen 
 dence and the Articles of Confederation. The apportionment 
 of representatives among the several states^ was, however, a sub 
 ject of such prominence, as to claim the earliest attention of the 
 convention. In an evil hour, the important advantage was con 
 ceded to the slave-holding states of including within the enume 
 ration of inhabitants by which the ratio of representation was to 
 be ascertained, three-fifths of those who were held in slavery. 
 For the surrender of right, involved in this anomalous arrange 
 ment, the large rcon-slave-holding states, such as New York and 
 Pennsylvania, obtained not even a nominal equivalent. The 
 provision relative to direct taxes, when viewed in all its bear 
 ings, is beneficial to the slave-holding rather than to the now- 
 slave-holding states. * The equal representation of the states in 
 the Senate, it will not be pretended, confers undue power upon 
 
 * The late Honourable William Paterson, who was a member of the con 
 vention by which the constitution of the United States was formed, speaking 
 of the mode which is prescribed by that instrument for the regulation of direct 
 taxes, says: " The provision was made in favour of the Southern states. They 
 possessed a large number of slaves; they had extensive tracts of territory thinly 
 settled and not very productive. A majority of the states had but few slaves, 
 and several of them a limited territory, well settled, and in a high state of cul 
 tivation. The Southern states, if no provision had been introduced in the 
 constitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other states. Con 
 gress, in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion or arbitrarily, and land in 
 every part of the Union, after the same rule or measure so much a head in 
 he first instance, and so much an acre in the second. To guard them against 
 imposition in these particulars, ivas the reason of introducing the clause in the 
 constitution, which directs that representatives and direct taxes shall be appor 
 tioned among the states, according to their respective numbers." See 3 Dallas* 
 Reports, 177. 
 
157 
 
 the LARGE non-slave-holding states. On the contrary, this 
 is known to have been the result of a compromise, in which 
 the interest of the small states only was consulted. It was 
 deemed necessary, in order to preserve the federative system ; 
 and believing as I do, that for this purpose it was indispensable, 
 great as was the sacrifice on the part of the large states, never 
 theless, it ought, I concede, to have been made. 
 
 This latter principle, of equal representation of the several 
 states in the Senate, induced the consent of the small non- 
 slave-holding states to the monstrous anomaly in a republican 
 government of the legislative representation of slaves by their 
 masters. No argument can be advanced to give plausibility to 
 this article of the constitution. It has been, already, the cause 
 of incalculable detriment to the nation. It has secured the re 
 cognition of slavery in Missouri it may operate the like effect 
 in other territories equally enriched by the bounty of Heaven 
 the like fit abodes of the children of freemen. 
 
158 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ON THE NINTH SECTION OF ARTICLE II. OP THE CONSTITUTION 
 OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 AT the adoption of the constitution, a majority of the states, 
 had but few slaves. In several, acts for the abolition of slavery had 
 been passed. These states were politically interested to oppose 
 the further importation of slaves. The ninth section of article 
 second was accordingly incorporated in the constitution. It is 
 in these words: " 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 may be imposed on 
 such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."" 5 
 
 * By the article of the constitution just quoted, Congress was prevented 
 from passing any law to prohibit, prior to the year 1808, the importation of 
 slaves into the United States, yet, no restraint was imposed upon its power to 
 prevent her citizens from engaging in the slave trade for the supply of foreign 
 countries. And a convention of delegates from the Abolition Societies established 
 in the states of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and 
 Maryland, having assembled on the first day of January, A. D. 1794, at Phila 
 delphia, addressed a memorial to Congress, requesting, " That a law might be 
 passed, prohibiting the traffic carried on by citizens of the United States for the sup 
 ply of slaves to foreign nations, and preventing foreigners from fitting out vessels 
 for the slave trade in the ports of the United States" This memorial was acted 
 upon by Congress with great promptness, and on the 22nd day of March of 
 the same year, an act of this body was passed, which prohibited, under the 
 penalty of the forfeiture of the ship and a fine of two thousand dollars for each 
 person concerned, any citizen of the United States, or any foreigner, resident 
 here, for himself, or for any other person whatsoever, either as master, factor 
 or owner, from building, equipping, Sec. any vessel within any port or place in 
 the United states, or causing, &c. for the purpose of carrying on any trade or 
 traffic in slaves to any FOREIGN COUNTRY. Ingersoll s Abridgment, 670. And 
 afterwards, (May 10, 1800,) it was made unlawful for any citizen of the United 
 States, or other person residing within the same, directly or indirectly, to hold 
 any right or property in a vessel employed in the transportation of slaves from 
 one foreign country to another, and a penalty was incurred by a violation of this 
 
159 
 
 As this article concerns the slave trade, and not the condition 
 of slaves after their introduction into our country, in itself it 
 has no immediate connexion with the subject in hand. But 
 certain laws have been enacted by Congress under the sanction 
 of it, from which consequences have ensued of such a nature as 
 to require more than a passing notice, particularly in regard to 
 the subject treated of in the first part* of this sketch. To illus 
 trate this point satisfactorily, will require a minute detail of the 
 provisions contained in the acts of congress alluded to, as also a 
 careful examination of several acts of the assemblies of some of 
 the individual states of the Union. 
 
 The time fixed by law for the annual meeting of congress, is, 
 it will be recollected, the first Monday in December. The in 
 terval between this date, in the year 1807, and that at which, 
 by the terms of the constitution, the importation of slaves might 
 be interdicted, was so brief, that it was obviously the dictate of 
 wisdom to begin with legislation, on so momentous a subject, 
 before the expiration of the preceding session. Accordingly, 
 on the second of March 1807, an act was passed, by which 
 such importation from abroad, was utterly prohibited after the 
 first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight. 
 
 act, of a forfeiture of such share or right as he might hold, &c. and a fine of 
 double the value of such share or right, &c. in the vessel, and, also, a fine 
 equal to twice the value of his interest in any siavc which, at any time, might 
 have been transported in any such vessel, Sec. Citizens of the United States 
 were, by the same act, forbidden to serve on board any vessel employed in the 
 slave trade, under the penalty of a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars 
 and of imprisonment not exceeding two years. Ibid 672, 673. 
 
 My purpose in introducing the subject of this note, is to evidence the sen 
 timents of at least a majority of the people of the United States, in regard to 
 the slave trade. Additional authority on the same point, may be derived from 
 another act of Congress, which was passed Februrary 28th, 1803, entitled, 
 "An act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certatn states, 
 where, by the laws thereof, their admission is prohibited." This law, the pur 
 port of which is but obscurely intimated by the title, was designed as a co-ope 
 ration on behalf of the Federal Government, in carrying into effect laws which 
 had been enacted by our Atlantic states (both the slave-holding and the non- 
 slave-holding,) to prohibit the importation of slaves from foreign dominions in- 
 o their respective territories 
 
 * See supra, page 19. 
 
160 
 
 The dale of this leading act evinces, in an unequivocal man 
 ner, the strong and general repugnance felt by the people of the 
 United States to the slave trade. But, while a firm persuasion 
 of the truth of this remark compels me to offer it, I cannot for 
 bear to add, that, viewed as a whole, the act is so discordant, 
 as to involve in no little obscurity the character of its supporters 
 for perspicacious foresight. An analysis of its provisions will 
 sufficiently elucidate my meaning. 
 
 The first section is short, and being the ground-work of what 
 follows, I will extract it verbally. " From and after the first 
 clay of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall 
 not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the 
 territories thereof, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, 
 any negro, mulatto or person of colour, with intent to hold, 
 sell or dispose of such negro, mulatto or person of colour, as a 
 slave, or to be held to service or labour." The second section 
 prohibits any person, after the first day of January, 1808, for 
 himself or for any other person, from being concerned in any 
 way whatever, in building, equipping, &c. a vessel, in any port, 
 &c. of the United States, for the purpose of carrying on the 
 slave trade ; and for a transgression of this prohibition, autho 
 rizes a forfeiture of the vessel, her tackle, &c. The third 
 section enforces the restriction in the second, by imposing 
 a fine of twenty thousand dollars on each person who shall 
 contravene the object of the preceding sections. The fourth 
 section is specially directed against the actual importation of 
 slaves. And it is in the provisions of this section, that the dis 
 cordancy, I have spoken of, is introduced. It may be given as 
 follows: "If any citizen of the United States or any person 
 resident within the jurisdiction of the same, shall, from and after 
 the first day of January, 1808, take on board, receive or trans 
 port, from any of the coasts or kingdoms of Africa, &c. &c. any 
 negro, &c. &c. in any ship or vessel, for the purpose of selling 
 them in any port, &c. within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States, as slaves, &c. or shall be in any way aiding, &c. such 
 citizen, &c. shall forfeit and pay five thousand dollars, &c. &c. 
 and the ship, &c. shall be forfeited, &c. And neither the im 
 porter, nor any person or persons claiming from or under him, 
 
161 
 
 shall hold any right or title whatsoever to any negro, &c. who 
 may be imported, &c. within the United States, &c. in violation 
 of this law, but the same shall remain subject to any regula 
 tions, not contravening the provisions of this act, which the 
 legislatures of the several states or territories at any time 
 hereafter may make, for DISPOSING of any such negro,mulatto 
 or person of colour." 
 
 Had the act stopt here, though the meaning would have been 
 obscure, as to what was to be understood, by the authority given 
 to the different state and territorial legislatures to make " regu 
 lations, not contravening the provisions of the act, FOR DIS 
 POSING of any such negro, &c," yet, I conceive, it would have 
 been held as the proper construction, that the imported negro 
 could not be retained as a slave. But the sixth section removes 
 the obscurity of the fourth, and explains the intention of con 
 gress to have been, that the negro, &c. though illegally import 
 ed, yet if so directed by the state legislatures, he and his off 
 spring, should be regarded as absolute slaves!!! 
 
 The sixth section is long, but it is 4 oo important to be omitted. 
 It is as follows: "If any person or persons whatever, shall 
 from and after the first day of January, 1808, purchase or sell 
 any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, for a slave, or to be 
 held to service or labour, who shall have been imported or 
 brought from any foreign kingdom, place or country, or from 
 the dominions of any foreign state, immediately adjoining to 
 the United States, into any port or place within the jurisdiction 
 of the United States, after the last day of December, 1807, 
 knowing at the time of such purchase or sale, such negro, mu 
 latto, or person of colour, was so brought within the jurisdiction 
 of the United States as aforesaid, such purchaser and seller shall 
 severally forfeit and pay for every negro, mulatto or person of 
 colour, so purchased, &c. as aforesaid, eight hundred dollars; 
 one moiety to the United States, &c. : Provided, thai the afore 
 said forfeiture shall not extend to THE SELLER OR PURCHASER 
 of any negro, fyc. who may be sold or disposed of IN VIRTUE 
 
 OF ANY REGULATION WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE MADE BY ANY 
 
 OF THE LEGISLATURES of the several states in that respe&t, IN 
 
 21 
 
162 
 
 PURSUANCE OP THIS ACT, and the constitution of the United 
 States." 
 
 The legislature of Louisiana was not tardy in improving the 
 privileges thus preposterously conferred by congress. By an 
 act of assembly, passed March 20th, 1809, it was enacted, that 
 every negro, mulatto or person of colour, who had been poste 
 rior to the first day of January, 1808, or who should be, at 
 any time thereafter, imported into the territory of Louisiana 
 from any foreign kingdom, place or country, with intent to be 
 held, sold or disposed of, for a slave, or to be held to service or 
 labour, either for life or for a term of years, should be sold by vir 
 tue of a judgment to be rendered by the territorial courts, before 
 whom proof of such importation should be made, and that the 
 proceeds of such sale should be delivered into the hands of the 
 treasurer of the territory, to be afterwards disposed of as the 
 legislature might deem proper. 1 Martin s Digest , 664. North 
 Carolina and Georgia, respectively adopted a similar law, the 
 former in 1816, Hay wood s Manual, 545, et seq., the latter* 
 in 1817. Prince s Digest, 463. 
 
 Public attention had not yet been attracted to the inconsis 
 tency of the act of congress which I have indicated. And what 
 may seem not a little surprising, on the 20th of April, 1818, 
 another act of congress was passed, imposing more severe pen 
 alties on the prosecution of the slave trade, but re-enacting the 
 odious sixth section of the act of March 2d, 1807, and recog- 
 
 * The act of Georgia, contains a provision, equally just and humane which 
 is not to be found in the act of North Carolina or in that of Louisiana. Having 
 authorized the governor to make sale of the unhappy captives, who, though 
 illegally imported, were, nevertheless subjected to the control of the state le 
 gislatures, and might be by them, consigned to interminable bondage, the 
 subjoined section was added: "If previous to any sale of such persons of 
 colour, the society for the colonization of free persons of colour within the 
 limited States, will undertake to transport them to Africa, or any other fo. 
 reign place which they may procure as a colony for free persons of colour at 
 the sole expense of said society, and shall likewise pay to his excellency the 
 governor, all expenses incurred by the state since they have been captured and 
 condemned, his excellency the governor is authorized and requested to aid in 
 promoting the benevolent views of said society in such manner as he may 
 deem expedient." Prince s Digest^ 463. 
 
163 
 
 nizitig the laws of the, several state legislatures on this sub 
 ject, which have just been commented upon ! ! See IngersoWs 
 Mridgment^ 680. 
 
 The evil, however, soon afterwards, reached its crisis. The 
 repetition of such monstrous injustice, awaked the slumbering 
 energies of the friends of injured Africa: and the same congress 
 by which the act of 1818 had been passed, was induced to 
 resume the consideration of the slave trade, and, having done 
 so, by a law of March 3d, 1819, authorized the president, at his 
 discretion, to cause any of the public armed vessels of the United 
 States to be employed to cruise on any of the coasts of the 
 United States, &c., or on the coast of Africa, in order to sup 
 press the slave trade; and directed that when any vessels should 
 be captured, having negroes, &c. on board, &c. they should be 
 delivered to the marshal of the district into which the vessel 
 might be brought, if the same should be a port of the United 
 States, and if brought in elsewhere, to an agent whom the pre 
 sident was empowered to appoint for such purpose, &c. And 
 authority was given to the president to make such arrangements 
 as he should think expedient for the safe-keeping, support, and 
 removal beyond the limits of the United State of such negroes, 
 &c. And to meet the case of slave vessels, which might es 
 cape seizure from the public armed vessels, it was enacted, that 
 when any citizen or other person should lodge information with 
 the attorney general for the district of any state, &c. that any 
 negro, &c. had been imported, &c. contrary to the provisions 
 of the acts for the suppression of the slave trade, such attorney 
 should be bound forthwith to commence a prosecution, &c. and 
 process was to be issued against the person charged with hold 
 ing such negro, &c. and if upon the verdict of a jury, it should 
 be ascertained, that any such negro, &c. had been imported con 
 trary to the acts of congress, &c. it was made the duty of the 
 court to direct the marshal, &c. to take the said negroes, &c. 
 into his custody for safe keeping, subject to the orders of the 
 president of the United States, &c. &c. The act also grants to 
 the informer a bounty of fifty dollars for each negro thus de 
 livered into the custody of the marshal. See Ingersoll s *ftbridg~ 
 
164 
 
 ment, 683. And lastly, I he sections of the former acts which 
 conferred authority upon the state legislatures to dispose of 
 
 the ILLEGALLY IMPORTED NEGROES, WERE REPEALED.* 
 
 * Notwithstanding this repeal, the state of Alabama, on first day of January, 
 1823, passed an act, entitled, " an act to cany into effect the laws of the United 
 States prohibiting the slave trade." The provisions of this extraordinary viola 
 tion of the act of congress, are similar to those comprised in the acts of Louisiana 
 and North Carolina, upon which I hav^ animadverted, authorizing in express 
 terms, an agent, to be appointed by the governor of the state, to sell for the 
 benefit of the state, all persons of colour who should be brought into the 
 United States, and within the jurisdiction of Alabama, contrary to the laws of 
 congress prohibiting the slave trade ! ! ! See Toulmin s Digest, 643. 
 
165 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE ACT OP CONGRESS RELATIVE TO FUGITIVE SLAVES. 
 
 THE Federal Government being composed of thirteen dis 
 tinct and independent sovereignties, in four of which, before the 
 constitution of the United States was framed, slavery had been 
 abolished, it was deemed expedient to secure by a stipulation to 
 be inserted in the constitution, a right in the citizens of one 
 state, whose servants or slaves should escape from their masters 
 and become residents of another state, to reclaim such fugitives 
 and subject them again to bondage. This stipulation is com 
 prised in the third division of section 2d, article 4, in these 
 words: " No person held to service or labour in one state under 
 the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence 
 of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such ser 
 vice or labour, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party 
 to whom such service or labour may be due." 
 
 Upon the authority of this provision of the constitution, an 
 act of Congress, dated February 12th, 1793, has been passed, 
 which, in its actual enforcement, is the source of bitter anguish 
 to its immediate victims, of deplorable excitement among the 
 free coloured population, and of painful sympathy and regret to 
 the humane and patriotic white citizen who may be compelled 
 to witness the spectacle. 
 
 The part of the act of Congress just mentioned, which bears 
 upon the present inquiry, is as follows: " When a person held 
 to labour in any of the United States, or in either of the terri 
 tories on the north-west or south of the river Ohio, under the 
 laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or 
 territories, the person to whom such labour or service may be 
 due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or 
 arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him or her before 
 any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, 
 residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a 
 
166 
 
 county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest 
 shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge 
 or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before 
 and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that 
 the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the state 
 or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labour to 
 the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such 
 judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, 
 his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for re 
 moving the said fugitive from labour to the state or territory 
 from which he or she fled." Ingersoll s Abridgment , 310. 
 
 Pennsylvania, from her contiguity to several of the slave- 
 holding states, has, probably been the forum of most of the de 
 cisions which have been made under this law. The records, 
 however, of but few of these have been preserved a majority, 
 unfortunately, having occurred before justices of the peace, se 
 lected by the claimant from their known willingness to subserve 
 his interest, rather than to administer with impartiality the au 
 thority delegated to them. 
 
 The act of Congress, and the article of the constitution of the 
 United States, above cited, are so essentially connected, that the 
 judicial decisions to which I have alluded, have been made 
 generally as much in reference to the one as to the other. I 
 shall, therefore, not attempt a distinct classification. 
 
 The first case of an important character, as relates to the pre 
 sent chapter, was that of Butler vs. Hopper, already inserted at 
 considerable length. It was there said, by Judge Washington, 
 that "the second section of the fourth article, (i. e. of the con 
 stitution of the United States,) which declares, that no person 
 held to labour or service in one state, under the laws thereof, 
 ESCAPING into another, shall, in cons equence of any law 
 therein, be discharged from such service, did not extend to the 
 case of a slave voluntarily carried by his master into another 
 state, and there leaving him under the protection of some law 
 declaring him free." 1 Washington s Circ. Court Rep. 501. 
 
 At October term, 1823, the principle of the decision in Sut 
 ler vs. Hopper, was again recognised by Judge Washington, 
 on an application preferred by J. W. Simmons, agreeably to 
 
167 
 
 the act of Congress of February 12, 1793, for a certificate that 
 James Mathist, a black man, was his slave. It was proved in 
 this case, that Simmons was a citizen of Charleston, South 
 Carolina, and had lived there, generally, till within a few years, 
 when he came to the city of Philadelphia, took a house, and 
 with his family had resided in the city ever since. James was 
 admitted to have been his slave before and at the time of his 
 leaving Charleston, and as such to have been brought by him to 
 Philadelphia, in June, 1822. Upon these facts the Judge re 
 fused the certificate, and dismissed the application, saying, that 
 the act of Congress applied exclusively to fugitive slaves, and 
 not to those whom their masters themselves brought from one 
 stale to another. 
 
 A third case may be adduced, decided on the twentieth of 
 February, 1826, by Judge Barnes, now President of the Dis 
 trict Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, upon the 
 following facts: " Marshall Green, a black man, was claimed 
 as a slave, by Peter Buchell, administrator, &c. of John Bu- 
 chell, deceased, who for many years before, and at the time of 
 his decease, was an inhabitant of Cecil county, Maryland. 
 About four years previous to the hearing before Judge Barnes, 
 and one year before the death of John Buchell, Mar shall abscond 
 ed from his master s residence, and continued absent until August, 
 1825, when he was arrested by Peter Buchell, and carried back 
 to Maryland. At the time when he absconded, he took with him 
 his three children, who were alleged also to be slaves. After 
 Mar shall 7 s return to Maryland, in August, 1825, Peter Buchell, 
 then his master, in order to obtain possession of these children, 
 gave himpermission,andfor that purpose furnished him with 
 a PASS, to come into Pennsylvania, upon his express promise, 
 that he would, within a certain period, if successful in the pur 
 suit of his children, bring them to his master if not successful, 
 he would return himself. The time of absence granted by the 
 master having expired, Marshall was again arrested, by virtue 
 of a warrant issued by Judge Barnes, in compliance with the 
 directions of the act of assembly of the commonwealth of Penn 
 sylvania, passed March 25th, 1826, and brought before him for 
 a hearing. The Judge having taken time for deliberation, re- 
 
168 
 
 fused the certificate applied for by the master, under the act of 
 Congress, upon the ground, which was ably supported in the 
 opinion he pronounced, that the act of Congress did not embrace 
 a case like that before him, inasmuch as Marshall was not a 
 fugitive slave had not " escaped from one state into another" 
 but, by his master s consent, had left Maryland and come 
 into Pennsylvania. 
 
 A construction of considerable importance, has been placed 
 upon another portion of the act of congress, by the Supreme 
 Court of Pennsylvania, in a case brought before it in 1819. The 
 following is the reporter s statement prefixed to the decision of 
 the court: "This was a writ de homine replegiando, sued out 
 by the plaintiff, a coloured man, against the defendant, who was 
 the keeper of the prison of the city and county of Philadelphia, 
 and the defendant s counsel now moved to quash it, on the 
 ground of its having issued contrary to the constitution and 
 laws of the United States. The facts were submitted to the 
 court, in a case stated, by which it appeared, that the plaintiff 
 having been claimed by Rasin Gale of Kent county, in the 
 state of Maryland, as a fugitive from his service, was arrested 
 by him, in the county of Philadelphia, and carried before Rich 
 ard Renshaw, Esq. justice of the peace, who committed the 
 plaintiff to prison, in order that inquiry might be made into the 
 claim of the said Gale. The plaintiff then sued out a habeas 
 corpus, returnable before Thomas Armstrong, Esq. an associ 
 ate judge of the Court of Common Pleas. Judge Armstrong 
 having heard the parties, gave a certificate, that it appeared to 
 him, by sufficient testimony, that the plaintiff owed labour or 
 service to said Gale, from whose service, in the state of Mary 
 land, he had absconded, and the said judge, therefore, in pur 
 suance of the act of the congress of the United States, &c. de 
 livered the said certificate to the said Gale, in order that the 
 plaintiff might be removed to the state of Maryland. " The 
 court having held the case under advisement for several days, 
 directed the writ to be quashed, on the ground, that by the act 
 of congress, the certificate of the judge was conclusive evidence 
 of the right of the master to remove the plaintiff to the state of 
 Maryland, and, therefore, that no writ of a civil nature could 
 
169 
 
 be issued to interrupt the master in tiie exercise of the power 
 conferred upon him by the certificate. Wright, otherwise called 
 Hall vs. Deacon, 5 Sergeant fy Rawle s Reports, 62-4. 
 
 But the constitution of the United States does not exempt 
 runaway slaves from the penal laws of a state in which they may 
 happen to flee upon escaping from their masters. As, where a 
 slave had absconded from his master, living in the state of Ma- 
 ryland, and was afterwards confined in prison in the city of 
 Philadelphia, upon the charge of fornication and bastardy, com 
 mitted during his residence in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court 
 refused to deliver him to his master, but ordered him to be de 
 tained, to answer the charge which had been made against him. 
 Case of the Commoniuealth, on the relation of Johnson, a ne 
 gro vs. Holloway, 3 Sergeant 8? Rawle s Reports, 4-6. And 
 see for a similar opinion 9 Johnson s (N. Y.) Reports, 70, 
 Glen vs. Hodges. 
 
 But, it was held in this latter case, by the Supreme Court of 
 the state of New York, that where a slave had absconded from 
 his master living in the state of New York, and had taken re 
 fuge in Vermont, that a citizen of this latter state, who had 
 traded with him under the belief that he was free, and as such 
 had given credit to him for goods, could not issue civil process 
 to prevent the master from reclaiming him, inasmuch as a slave 
 is, in law, incapable of making a contract.* 
 
 Much complaint having been made against justices of the 
 peace and aldermen for an abuse of the powers given to them 
 by the act of congress, the legislature of Pennsylvania, passed 
 an act, dated March 27th, 1820, prohibiting them from the fur 
 ther exercise of these powers. And on the 25th of March, 1826, 
 the subject of arresting fugitive slaves having been again brought, 
 in a very extraordinary manner, before the legislatue, a law was 
 passed, which, besides the re-enactment of the prohibition in 
 the act of 1820, contains many other regulations which, from 
 their importance, are here inserted. 
 
 "Sect. 3. Be it enacted, fyc. That when a person held to la 
 bour or service in any of the United States, or in either of the 
 territories thereof, under the laws thereof, shall escape into this 
 
 * See supra, page 
 
 22 
 
170 
 
 commonwealth, the person to whom such labour or. service i$ 
 due, his or her duly authorized agent or attorney, constituted in 
 writing, is hereby authorized to apply to any judge, justice of 
 the peace, or alderman, who on such application, supported by 
 the oath or affirmation of such claimant, or authorized agent or 
 attorney, as aforesaid, that the said fugitive hath escaped from 
 his or her service, or from the service of the person for whom 
 he is duly constituted agent or attorney, shall issue his warrant 
 under his hand and seal, and directed to the sheriff or any consta 
 ble of the proper city or county, authorizing and empowering 
 said sheriff, or constable, to arrest and seize said fugitive, who 
 shall be named in said warrant, and to bring said fugitive be 
 fore a judge of the proper county, which said warrant shall be 
 in the form or to the effect following: " State of Pennsylvania, 
 county, ss: The commonwealth of Penn 
 sylvania to the sheriff or any constable of 
 county, greeting. Whereas it appears by the oath, or solemn 
 affirmation, of that 
 
 was held to labour or service, to , of 
 
 county, in the state of , and 
 
 that the said hath escaped from the labour 
 
 and service of the said , . You are 
 
 therefore commanded to arrest and seize the body of the said 
 
 , if he be found in your county, and 
 
 bring him, forthwith, before the person issuing the warrant, if a 
 judge, (or if a justice of the peace or alderman) before a judge 
 of the court of common pleas, or of the district court, as the 
 case may be, of your proper county, or recorder of a city, so 
 that the truth of the matter may be inquired into, and the said 
 
 be dealt with as the constitution of 
 
 the United States and the laws of this commonwealth directs. 
 Witness our said judge, (or alderman, or justice, as the case 
 may be,) at this day of 
 
 A. D. one thousand eight hundred and By 
 
 virtue of such warrant the person named therein may be arrest 
 ed by the proper sheriff, or constable, to whom the same shall 
 be delivered within the proper city or county. 
 
 Sect. .4. Be it enacted, fyc. That no judge, justice of the peace 
 
171 
 
 or alderman, shall issue a warrant, on the application of any 
 agent or attorney, as provided in the said third section, unless 
 the said agent or attorney shall, in addition to his own oath or 
 affirmation, produce the affidavit of the claimant of the fugitive, 
 taken before, and certified by a justice of the peace or other ma 
 gistrate authorized to administer oaths, in the state or territory 
 in which such claimant shall reside, and accompanied by the cer 
 tificate of the authority of such justice or other magistrate, to ad 
 minister oaths, signed by the clerk or prothonotary, and authen 
 ticated by the seal of a court of record, in such state or territory, 
 which affidavit shall state the said claimant s title, to the service 
 of such fugitive, and also the name, age and description of the 
 person of such fugitive. 
 
 Sect. 5. Be it enacted, fyc. That it shall be the duty of any 
 judge, justice of the peace or alderman, when he grants or issues 
 any warrant under the provisions of the third section of this act, 
 to make a fair record on his docket, of the same, in which he 
 shall enter the name and place of residence of the person on 
 whose oath or affirmation the said warrant may be granted and 
 also if an affidavit shall have been produced under the provisions 
 of the fourth section of this act, the name and place of residence 
 of the person making such affidavit, and the age and description 
 of the person of the alleged fugitive contained in such affidavit, 
 and shall within ten days thereafter, file a certified copy thereof 
 in the office of the clerk of the court of general quarter sessions 
 of the peace or mayor s court, of the proper city or county; and 
 any judge, justice of the peace or alderman, who shall refuse, or 
 neglect to comply with the provisions of this section, shall be 
 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office, and shall, on con 
 viction thereof, be sentenced to pay, at the discretion of the 
 court, any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, one half to 
 the party prosecuting for the same, and the other half to the 
 commonwealth; and that any sheriff or constable, receiving and 
 executing the said warrant, shall without unnecessary delay, 
 carry the person arrested before the judge, according to the exi 
 gency of the warrant; and any sheriff or constable, who shall re 
 fuse or wilfully neglect so to do, shall on conviction thereof, be 
 sentenced to pay, at the discretion of the court, any sum not ex- 
 
172 
 
 ceeding five hundred dollars, one half to the party prosecutip-g 
 for the same, and the other half to the commonwealth, or shall 
 also he sentenced to imprisonment, at hard labour, for a time 
 not exceeding six months, or both. 
 
 Sect. 6. Be it enacted, fyc. That the said fugitive from labour 
 or service, when so arrested, shall be brought before a judge, as 
 aforesaid, and upon proof, to the satisfaction of such judge, that 
 the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the 
 state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or la 
 bour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of 
 such judge to give a certificate thereof, to such claimant, his or 
 her duly authorized agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient 
 warrant for removing the said fugitive to the state or territory 
 from which he or she fled: Provided, That the oath of the owner 
 or owners, or other person interested, shall in no case be receiv 
 ed in evidence, before the judge, on the hearing of the case. 
 
 Sect. 7. Be it enacted, fyc. That when the fugitive shall be 
 brought before the judge, agreeably to the provisions of this acb 
 and either party allege, and prove to the satisfaction of the said 
 judge, that he or she is not prepared for trial, and have testimo 
 ny material to the matter in controversy that can be obtained in 
 a reasonable time, it shall and may be lawful, unless security, 
 satisfactory to the said judge, be given, for the appearance of the 
 said fugitive, on a day certain, to commit the said fugitive to 
 the common jail for safe keeping, there to be detained at the ex 
 pense of the owner, agent or attorney, for such time as the said 
 judge shall think reasonable and just, and to a day certain, when 
 the said fugitive shall be brought before him by habeas corpus, 
 in the court house of the proper county, or in term time, at the 
 chamber of the said judge, for final hearing and adjudication: 
 Provided, That if the adjournment of the hearing be requested 
 by the claimant, his agent or attorney, such adjournment shall 
 not be granted, unless the said claimant, his agent or attorney, 
 shall give security, satisfactory to the judge, to appear and pro 
 secute his claim, on the day to which the hearing shall be ad 
 journed: Provided, That on the hearing last mentioined, if the 
 judge committing the said fugitive, or taking the security as 
 aforesaid, should be absent, sick or otherwise unable to attend, 
 
173 
 
 Jt shall be the duty of either of the other judges, on notice 
 to attend to the said hearing, and to decide thereon. 
 
 Sect. 9. Be it enacted, fyc. That no alderman or justice of 
 the peace of this commonwealth shall have jurisdiction, or take 
 cognizance of the case of any fugitive from labour, from any of 
 the United States or territories, under a certain act of congress, 
 passed on the twelfth day of February, one thousand seven hun 
 dred and ninety-three, entiled "An act respecting fugitives from 
 justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters;" 
 nor shall any alderman or justice of the peace, of this common 
 wealth, issue or grant any certificate or warrant of removal, of 
 any such fugitive from labour, as aforesaid, except in the manner 
 and to the effect provided in the third section of this act, upon 
 the application, affidavit or testimony of any person or persons 
 whatsoever, under the said act of congress, or under any other 
 law, authority or act of the congress of the United States; and if 
 any alderman or justice of the peace of this commonwealth, shall 
 contravene the provisions of this act, take cognizance or juris 
 diction of the case of any such fugitive as aforesaid, except in the 
 manner herein before provided, or shall grant or issue any cer 
 tificate or warrant of removal as aforesaid, then, and in either 
 case, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office, and 
 shall on conviction thereof, be sentenced to pay, at the discretion 
 of the court, any sum not less than five hundred dollars, nor ex 
 ceeding one thousand dollars, the one half to the party prosecut 
 ing for the same, and the other half to the use of this common 
 wealth. 
 
 Sect. 10. Be it enacted, $c. That it shall be the duty of the 
 judge or recorder, of any court of record of this commonwealth, 
 when he grants or issues any certificate or warrant of removal, 
 of any negro or mulatto, claimed to be a fugitive from labour, 
 to the state or territory from which he or she fled, in pursuance 
 of an act of congress, passed on the twelfth day of February, one 
 thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, entitled "An act re 
 specting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the 
 service of their masters," and of this act, to make a fair record 
 of the same, in which he shall enter the name, age, sex and a 
 general description of the person of the negro or mulatto, for 
 
174 
 
 whom he shall grant such certificate or warrant of removal, to 
 gether with the evidence and the name of places of residence of 
 the witnesses, and the party claiming such negro or mulatto, and 
 shall within ten days thereafter, file a certified copy thereof, in 
 the office of the clerk of the court of general quarter sessions of 
 the peace, or mayor s court of the city or county in which he may 
 reside." 
 
 But, notwithstanding the tendency of these regulations, is to 
 throw around the person claimed as a fugitive slave, a much 
 greater security than he before possessed, yet since, by the de 
 cision of the Supreme Court of the state, the certificate of the 
 judge, &c. is to be regarded as conclusive evidence of a right in 
 the individual to whom it is granted, to remove his captive to a 
 land where his very colour is his condemnation, it is manifest, 
 that even in Pennsylvania, great injustice to coloured persons may 
 still be perpetrated with impunity. But in those states, where 
 a justice of the peace, with, perhaps, no other knowledge of ju 
 risprudence than the almost boundless extent of his powers, and 
 no regard for his reputation, except what the dread of punishment 
 may inspire, sits, if he so please, in the privacy of his cham 
 ber, the sole arbiter of the law and the fact, who will say, 
 that manstealing may not be prosecuted under the panoply of 
 the law? 
 
175 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OP THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THE 
 TERRITORIES NOT YET FORMED INTO STATES. 
 
 By several treaties with foreign powers, and by cessions 
 from many of the original states of the confederacy, the Fede 
 ral Government has, at different times, acquired lawful and 
 peaceable possession of a vast extent of country, much of which 
 is not yet formed into states, but is known by the name of Ter 
 ritories. Over these Territories, the Federal Government is 
 expressly authorized by the constitution, to exercise entire ju 
 risdiction. The provision alluded to, of the constitution, is 
 this: "Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all 
 needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other 
 property belonging to the United States. * J3.rt. 4, 3. Un 
 less, therefore, the treaties and acts of cession impose condi 
 tions, the authority of the Federal Government over the Terri 
 tories, is without limit. And such is not only the plain intent, 
 but has been the uniform construction of this article of the con 
 stitution. 
 
 The territory north west of the river Ohio, was ceded, hap 
 pily, upon the condition, that slavery should not be permitted 
 there! On the contrary, the deed of cession of the territory 
 south of the same river, forming at this time the state of Ten 
 nessee, made it imperative on Congress to tpleratc it within 
 the limits of that cession. The treaties by which the Federal 
 Government derive title to Louisiana and the Floridas, con 
 tain no provision on the subject. 
 
 With respect to Louisiana, previous to the formation of a 
 state out of a part of its territory, it was competent to the United 
 States to have annihilated the institution of slavery within the 
 whole of its extensive borders. It is competent for her now to 
 do so, as to those portions which are not comprised within the 
 
176 
 
 bounds of the 1 wo states have been created out of it. It is 
 hardly necessary to apply this remark specifically to the Flo- 
 ridas: they are, obviously, in a similar predicament. 
 
 The abolition of slavery in her territories, has not been at 
 tempted by the Federal Government. But highly important re 
 gulations have been made by Congress, on a point not very re 
 motely allied to that subject. On the 7th of April 1798, an act 
 was passed by this body, "Authorizing the establishment of 
 a government in the Mississippi Territory;" the seventh sec 
 tion of which provides, "That after the establishment of the 
 aforesaid government, it shall not be lawful for any person or 
 persons to import or bring into the said Mississippi Territory, 
 from any port or place without the limits of the United States, 
 or to cause or procure to be so imported, &e. or knowingly to 
 aid or assist in so importing, &c. any slave or slaves, and that 
 every person so offending, &c. shall forfeit, &c. for each and 
 every slave so imported, &c. the sum of three hundred dollars, 
 &c. and that every slave so imported, fyc. shall thereupon be 
 come entitled to and receive his or her freedom. See acts of 
 the 2nd session of the 5th Congress, chap. 45. This section 
 is incorporated without the least variation, except as to the 
 name of the territory, into the act of Congress passed March 
 26, 1804, entitled, "An act erecting Louisiana into two terri 
 tories, and providing for the temporary government thereof," 
 with supplementary regulations, prohibiting, in the first place, 
 under an equal penalty, the introduction into Louisiana Terri 
 tory, "from any port or place within the limits of the United 
 States, &c. any slave or slaves which had been imported since 
 the first of May, 1798, into any port or place within the limits 
 of the United States, or which should be imported thereafter 
 from any port or place without the limits of the United States," 
 and concluding in this manner: "And no slave or slaves shall 
 directly or indirectly be introduced into said territory, except 
 by a citizen of the United States removing into said territory 
 for actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal 
 bond fide owner of such slave or slaves, and every slave import 
 ed or brought into the said territory, contrary to the provisions 
 of this act, shall, thereupon, be entitled to and receive his or her 
 
177 
 
 freedom." *ftcts of the 1st session of the 8th Congress, chap. 
 33, 10. 
 
 This act does honour to the illustrious body from which it 
 proceeded. In practice, however, its benefits were of much 
 less value than one, not fully conversant with the mode in which 
 the DOMESTIC slave trade is prosecuted, would be led to infer. 
 A prohibition on this subject, to be effectual, should be ABSOLUTE 
 AND WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION. Jlctual settlers and bona fide 
 owners may protect this traffic to an extent adequate to the de 
 mand, without incurring a risk at all commensurate with the 
 probable gain. 
 
 But the act is of great moment, as a precedent to Congress, 
 in regard to the Missouri, the A rkansas, and Florida Territo 
 ries. The defects which have been suggested, may be easily 
 supplied. Let the introduction of slaves into these territories, 
 be, without delay, WHOLLY FORBIDDEN. Humanity and religion, 
 the character of our country the true interests as well of the 
 slave-holding, as of the non-slave-holding states, demand this to 
 be done. 
 
 23 
 
178 
 
 NOTE TO PAGES ill U>. 
 
 The form in which it was found convenient to print the table 
 inserted on the above pages, prevented the following note from 
 being added in its proper place. 
 
 In forming this table, a difficulty has been experienced, oi 
 which the reader should be apprised. The Revised Code of 
 Mississippi was prepared chiefly in 182 1 and 1822, by Gover 
 nor Poindexter, under the authority of an appointment for this 
 purpose, by the legislature. The excellence of its execution, 
 evinces that much time and study were bestowed upon it. I am, 
 nevertheless, not able to learn to my entire satisfaction, either 
 from the code or from the constitution of the state, whether or 
 not, the common law or any part of it, is recognized there. It 
 is declared in the constitution, that, " all laws and parts of 
 laws now in force in the Mississippi territory, and not repug 
 nant to the provisions of this constitution, shall continue and re 
 main in force as the laws of this state, until they expire by their 
 o-ivn limitation, or shall be altered or repealed by the legisla 
 ture thereof." The expressions "parts of laws " and, " expir 
 ing by their own limitation," seem to refer exclusively to 
 statutes and not to the common law. The Revised Code, is a 
 collection of public statutes, and is so expressly denominated. 
 It contains no statute which adopts the common law or any por 
 tion of it. I incline, therefore, to the opinion, that it is not in 
 force there. Feeling, however, some hesitancy, I have not 
 ventured to speak peremptorily on this point, but have stated in 
 the table, in many instances, under the head of "punishment of 
 white persons," "not provided for by statute;" which implies, 
 according to the view which I have taken, that white persons 
 are not at all punishable for any of these offences. Some, in 
 deed, are not offences by the common law. The same remark, 
 "not provided for by statute," might with propriety have been 
 noted in reference to the punishment of white persons, for of 
 fences, Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27, instead of that 
 which I have given, i. e. "a fine not exceeding 300 dollars, 
 and may at the discretion of the court, receive 3.9 lashes." For 
 this is the punishment assigned for a crime somewhat different, 
 namely, misprisionor concealment of the felonies mentioned. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Of the persons who may beheld as slaves, and upon what authority they 
 are so held, 9 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Of the incidents of slavery the relation of master and slave, - -21 
 
 PROP, i. The master may determine the kind, and degree, and time of la 
 bour, to which the slave shall be subjected, - - - 26 
 
 PROP. ir. 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, 30 
 
 PROP. in. The master may, at his discretion, inflict any punishment upon 
 
 the person of his slave, 35 
 
 PROP, iv. All the power of the master ovei m his slave may be exercised 
 not by himself only in person, but by any one whom he may 
 depute as his agent, 44 
 
 PROP. v. Slaves have no legal rights of property in things, real or per 
 sonal; but whatever they may acquire belongs, in point of 
 law, to their masters, 45 
 
 PROP. vi. The slave being- a personal chattel, is at all times liable to be 
 sold absolutely, or mortgaged, or leased, at the will of his 
 master, 50 
 
 PROP. vn. He may also be sold by process of law for the satisfaction of 
 the debts of a living, or the debts and bequests of a deceas 
 ed master, at the suit of creditors or legatees, - - - 51 
 
 PROP. vin. A slave cannot be a party before a judicial tribunal, in any 
 species of action, against his master, no matter how atroci 
 ous may have been the injury received from him, - -57 
 
 PROP. ix. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of mas 
 ters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such 
 change necessary for their personal safety, . 57 
 
 PROP. x. Slaves being objects of properly, if injured by third persons, 
 their owners may bring suit, and recover damages, for the 
 injury, .... .... 59 
 
 PROP. xi. Slaves can make no contract, - 61 
 
 PROP. xii. Slavery is hereditary and perpetual, 62 
 
180 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Of the condition of the slave considered as a member of civil society, - 65 
 SECT, i. A slave cannot be a witness against a white person, either in a 
 
 civil or criminal cause, 65 
 
 SECT. ir. He cannot be a party to a civil suit, - - , - 76 
 
 SECT. in. The benefits of education are withheld from the slave, - 
 SECT. iv. The means for moral and religious instruction are not granted to 
 the slave; on the contrary, the efforts of the humane and 
 charitable to supply these wants are discountenanced by law, 90 
 SECT. v. Submission is required of the slave, not to the will of his mas 
 ter only, but to that of all other white persons, - - - 96 
 SECT. vi. The penal codes of the slave-holding states bear much more 
 
 severely upon slaves than upon white persons, - - - 1 
 SECT, vii. Slaves are prosecuted and tried upon criminal accusations in a 
 
 manner inconsistent with the rights of humanity, - 119 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 On the dissolution of slavery, 
 
 SBCT. i. Of the laws for the abolition of slavery, 
 
 SECT. ii. On the laws regulating the emancipation of slaves, - 145 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 Of the laws of the United States relating to slavery, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 On the apportionment of representatives to congress, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 On the ninth section of Article II. of the constitution of the United States, 158 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Of the act of congress relative to fugitive slaves, 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Of the jurisdiction of the federal government over the territories not yet 
 
 formed intestates, - 
 An omitted note, 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO*- 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 DEC 01J9R7 
 
 JUL 1 6 1996 
 
 XDTOf DI! 
 
 5C: HFC 1 3 ZOOO 
 
 CIRCULATION DEP-H uc - w _ 
 
 DEC. 1 Z I 
 
 >b/ 
 
 
 
 
 op is-ge 
 
 BtfRjB5jm 
 
 
 A yiOOiSC.JUU15 1 88 
 
 NOV 7 2000 
 
 
 
 JUL 71995 
 
 :! 
 
 
 M1 ^ * ZOQ1 
 
 
 Jn^ 1 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1/83 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 fBw 
 
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY