Читать книгу: «Slavery and the Constitution», страница 5

To teach untruths is a greater wrong to a man's soul than merely to keep him in ignorance. How much more pitifully wicked is it, then, to teach such untruths only or mainly as must advance the pecuniary interest of the oppressor!

CHAPTER VI.
INDIRECT INSTRUCTION. – NO LEGAL MARRIAGE OF SLAVES

"Marriage unites all which ennobles and beautifies life." —De Wette

"Negro marriages are neither recognized nor protected by law." —Rev. C. C. Jones

Besides the direct instruction thus imparted to slaves, there is an indirect instruction much more powerful and effective in securing their degradation.

"Marriage," says De Wette, "is genuine only when single and permanent. It is then also the first and most important institution of human existence; the foundation of all civilization and culture; the root of church and state. It is the most intimate covenant of heart formed among mankind; and thousands are first made aware by it that they have within them a nobler impulse and a nobler want than to labor, to acquire, and to enjoy. It is the union of manly strength with feminine gentleness; the tempering of masculine rudeness by female delicacy; and, for innumerable persons, the only relation in which they feel the true sentiments of humanity. It gives scope for every human virtue, since each of these is developed from the love and confidence which here predominate. It unites all which ennobles and beautifies life, – sympathy, kindness of will and deed, gratitude, devotion, and every delicate, intimate feeling. As the only asylum for true education, it is the first and last sanctuary of human culture. As husband and wife, through each other, become conscious of complete humanity, of every humane feeling and every humane virtue; so children, at their first awakening in the fond covenant of love between parents, both of whom are tenderly concerned for the same object, find an image of complete humanity, leagued in free love. The spirit of love, which prevails between them, acts with creative power upon the young mind, and awakens every germ of goodness within it. This invisible, uncalculated, and incalculable influence of parental life acts more upon the child than all the efforts of education by means of instruction, precept, and exhortation."

How true and yet how faint a picture of the vast influence for good of the institution of marriage! But if marriage thus unites all which it ennobles and beautifies life; if, as a means of education, its influence is uncalculated and incalculable, what must be the moral degradation of that people to whom marriage is denied? Must not the degradation also be uncalculated and incalculable? And yet such is the condition of the slaves! Not content with depriving them of all the higher and holier enjoyments of marriage, by degrading and darkening their souls, the slaveholders deny to their slaves even that slight alleviation to their misery which would result from their marriage-relations being protected.

It is obviously true, that (Jones's "Catechism," p. 112) "all the comfort and happiness of the marriage-state, and all the good flowing from it, to families and the world at large, depend upon its sacredness and purity." Without these there can be no marriage. No less true is it, that the institution ("Rel. Inst." p. 132) "depends, for its perpetuity, sacredness, and value, largely upon the protection given to it by the law of the land." But the law gives no protection whatever to the marriage of slaves!

"Slaves cannot marry," says the Civil Code of Louisiana (Art. 182), "without the consent of their masters; and their marriages do not produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract."

"With the consent of their masters, slaves may marry, and their moral power to agree to such a contract or connection as that of marriage cannot be doubted; but, whilst in a state of slavery, it cannot produce any civil effect, because slaves are deprived of all civil rights" (6 Martin's Rep. 550.)

"As the State," says a writer in the "Carolina Baptist," "constitutionally and legally is ignorant of the marriage of slaves, it is equally ignorant of its dissolution. It leaves this whole matter where it ought to be, that is, untouched, and with the owners themselves. If there be an abuse of this power, the remedy is not with the State, but social, religious, and ecclesiastical" ("The Church as it is," p. 77).

"Negro marriages," says Mr. Jones ("Rel. Inst." pp. 132, 133), "are neither recognized nor protected by law. The negroes receive no instruction on the nature, sacredness, and perpetuity of the institution: at any rate, they are far from being duly impressed with these things. They are not required to be married in any particular form, nor by any particular persons. Their ceremonies are performed by their own watchmen or teachers, by some white minister, or, as it frequently happens, not at all… There is no special disgrace nor punishment visited upon those who criminally violate their marriage vows,[M] except what may be inflicted by owners, or, if the parties be members, by the church in the way of suspension and excommunication." – Page 119: "The relation is liable to disruption in a variety of forms, for some of which there is no remedy." – Page 133: "Families are, and may be, divided for improper conduct on the part of either husband or wife, or by necessity, as in cases of the death of owners, division of estates, debt, sale, or removals; for they are subject to all the changes and vicissitudes of property. Such divisions are, however, carefully guarded against and prevented, as far as possible, by owners, on the score of interest, as well as of religion and humanity. Hence, as may well be imagined, the marriage-relation loses much of the sacredness and perpetuity of its character. It is a contract of convenience, profit, or pleasure, that may be entered into and dissolved at the will of the parties, and that without heinous sin."

What a pitiful and wicked mockery it is thus to expound to slaves the seventh commandment! (Jones's "Catechism," pp. 110, 111):

"Q. Should persons be married in a public or in a private way? – A. In a public way.

Q. And by whom should the ceremony be performed? – A. By a minister or some other lawful person.

Q. Is God really present to witness the marriage? – A. Yes.

Q. How near of kin may a man marry? – A. His first cousin.

Q. After marriage, can husband and wife separate whenever they please? – A. No.

Q. Has any person whatever power to separate them if he pleases? – A. No.

Q. What saith our Saviour, 'What, therefore, God hath joined'? A. 'What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'

Q. Can husband and wife ever separate? – A. Yes.

Q. In how many ways? – A. In two only.

Q. What is the first? – A. When either of them commits adultery.

Q. What is the second? – A. When either of them dies.

Q. After one dies, may the other lawfully marry again? – A. Yes.

Page 112: Q. How will God punish those who break this commandment in the world to come? – A. In everlasting fire."

How sacred is the marriage of slaves! They cannot even go through the form, without the consent of their owners. And if the owner of two bodies consents to the performance of the ceremony "by a minister or some other lawful person," and God himself "is really present to witness the marriage," the law, notwithstanding, declares the so-called marriage to be as complete a nullity as the union of any other kind of live-stock! It declares that those whom God hath joined may be put asunder, whenever the owner pleases; as if, wishing to raise money to pay his debts, he finds it more convenient to sell the wife at auction to pledging his bank-stock; or if, wishing to remove, he thinks it will be better economy to take his stock with him than sell out, perhaps at a sacrifice, and buy again an inferior article! In order to be able to live with his wife at all, Henry Brown was obliged to hire her of her owner for fifty dollars a year; and, when her master became short of funds, he sold the wife and three children, before Brown's very face, to a Methodist minister, – one of those holy men who are "called of God" and "solemnly set apart" to preach to all men the gospel of love! So sacred is the marriage of slaves!

There is no such thing as a sacred marriage among slaves. Marriage, with them, at its best estate, is but concubinage. The relation must be entered into when and as the owner orders! It is changed whenever, in his good pleasure, he wills that it shall change! It ends when he wills that it shall end! Wherein is the union among the human stock, on the Southern plantations, regarded as more sacred and lasting than the union among the brute stock? In both cases, the law considers the union as a merely animal relation, for an animal purpose, – the increase, perhaps the improvement, of the breed! So sacred is the marriage of slaves!

The following advertisements, and hundreds of similar ones might be cited, throw light on the subject: —

From the "Richmond Enquirer," Feb. 20, 1838:

"Stop the Runaway!!! – $25 Reward. Ran away from the Eagle Tavern, a negro fellow, named Nat. He is no doubt attempting to follow his wife, who was lately sold to a speculator, named Redmond. The above reward will be paid by Mrs. Lucy M. Downman, of Sussex county, Va."

From the "Richmond (Va.) Compiler," Sept. 8, 1837:

"Ran away from the Subscriber – Ben. He ran off without any known cause, and I suppose he is aiming to go to his wife, who was carried from the neighborhood last winter.

John Hunt."

From the "Lexington (Ky.) Intelligencer," July 7, 1838:

"$160 Reward. – Ran away from the subscribers, living in this city, on Saturday, 16th inst. a negro man, named Dick, about 37 years of age. It is highly probable said boy will make for New Orleans, as he has a wife living in that city, and he has been heard to say frequently that he was determined to go to New Orleans.

Drake & Thompson.

"Lexington, June 17, 1838."

"$50 Reward. – Ran away from the subscriber, his negro man, Pauladore, commonly called Paul. I understand Gen. R. Y. Hayne has purchased his wife and children from H. L. Pinckney, Esq. and has them now on his plantation at Goosecreek, where, no doubt, the fellow is frequently lurking.

T. Davis."

The wife has been sold to the speculator in human flesh! The sacred relation has been for ever sundered by God's overseer! The husband has been orally taught to say, – "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and to consider such to be a divine command. But he is strong and healthy, and his master orders him to live with another woman. What is he to do? If he obeys, he commits adultery, and disobeys God's commands. Truly a difficult matter to settle!

What ardent prayers will the church send up to heaven, that their brother may have strength given to him to enable him to save his soul alive! What earnest entreaties! How solemnly will the church remonstrate with its member against the commission of so great a sin! And, when prayers, entreaties, remonstrances, have all been tried and have failed, how sternly will the church proceed to the last extremity, – excommunication! If the man who marries his deceased wife's sister must be cut off from "membership in the Saviour's body" as impure,[N] how much more must that man be cut off who is faithless during his wife's lifetime?

How admirably does the Savannah River Baptist Association harmonize the worship of God and mammon, and reconcile obedience to the commands of the master with obedience to God! This Association, in reply to the question (Brooke's "Slavery," p. 38), —

"Whether, in a case of involuntary separation, of such a character as to preclude all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought to be allowed to marry again,"

Answer —

"That such separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is civilly a separation by death; and they believe, that, in the sight of God, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages in such cases would be to expose the parties, not only to stronger hardships and strong temptation, but to church-censure for acting in obedience to their masters, who cannot be expected to acquiesce in a regulation at variance with justice to the slaves, and to the spirit of that command which regulates marriage among Christians. The slaves are not free agents; and a dissolution by death is not more entirely without their consent, and beyond their control, than by such separation."

A similar decision was made by the Shiloh Baptist Association in Virginia. This question was presented for solution ("The Church as it is," pp. 76, 77), —

"Is a servant, whose husband or wife has been sold by his or her master into a distant country, to be permitted to marry again?"

The query was referred to a committee, who made the following report; which, after discussion, was adopted: —

"That, in view of the circumstances in which servants in this country are placed, the committee are unanimous in the opinion, that it is better to permit servants thus circumstanced to take another husband or wife."

Convenient truth! A different rule would lessen the productiveness of the master's stock! Can any man who owns the body of his sister be expected to acquiesce in a regulation which would deprive his property of half its value!

But, suppose the master wishes to sell the female slave for purposes of licentiousness, or suppose the master is himself impure, is this agreeable to the order of Divine Providence? Does any one say that either law or public opinion protects the female slave from the brutality of her master? The great frequency of outrages of this kind is demonstrated by the tens of thousands of slaves, more or less white, who are found at the South. It was a Southerner who said, that the best blood of Virginia flowed in the veins of her slaves!

From the "Richmond (Va.) Whig:"

"$100 Reward will be given for the apprehension of my negro(?) Edmund Kenney. He has straight hair, and complexion so nearly white, that it is believed a stranger would suppose there was no African blood in him. He was with my boy Dick a short time since in Norfolk, and offered him for sale, and was apprehended, but escaped under pretence of being a white man!

Anderson Bowles.

"January 6, 1836."

From the "Republican Banner and Nashville Whig" of July 14, 1849:

"$200 Reward – Ran away from the subscriber, on the 23d of June last, a bright mulatto woman, named Julia, about 25 years of age. She is of common size, nearly white, and very likely. She is a good seamstress, and can read a little. She may attempt to pass for white, – dresses fine. She took with her Anna, her child, 8 or 9 years old, and considerably darker than her mother… She once belonged to a Mr. Helm, of Columbia, Tennessee.

"I will give a reward of $50 for said negro and child, if delivered to me or confined in any jail in this State, so I can get them; $100, if caught in any other Slave State, and confined in a jail so that I can get them; and $200, if caught in any Free State, and put in any good jail in Kentucky or Tennessee, so I can get them.

A. W. Johnson.

"Nashville, July 9, 1849."

The following three advertisements are taken from Alabama papers:

"Ran away from the Subscriber, working on the plantation of Col. H. Tinker, a bright mulatto boy, named Alfred. Alfred is about 18 years old, pretty well grown, has blue eyes, light flaxen hair, skin disposed to freckle. He will try to pass as free-born.

S. G. Stewart.

"Green County, Ala."

"$100 Reward. – Ran away from the subscriber, a bright mulatto man-slave, named Sam. Light sandy hair, blue eyes, ruddy complexion, – is so white as very easily to pass for a free white man.

Edwin Peck.

"Mobile, April 22, 1837."

"Ran away, on the 15th of May, from me, a negro woman, named Fanny. Said woman is 20 years old; is rather tall; can read and write, and so forge passes for herself. Carried away with her a pair of ear-rings, – a Bible with a red cover; is very pious. She prays a great deal, and was, as supposed, contented and happy. She is as white as most white women, with straight light hair, and blue eyes, and can pass herself for a white woman. I will give $500 for her apprehension and delivery to me. She is very intelligent.

John Balch.

"Tuscaloosa, May 29, 1845."

From the "Newbern (N.C.) Spectator:"

"$50 Reward will be given for the apprehension and delivery to me of the following slaves, – Samuel and Judy, his wife, with their four children, belonging to the estate of Sacker Dubberly, deceased.

"I will give $10 for the apprehension of William Dubberly, a slave belonging to the estate. William is about 19 years old, quite white, and would not readily be taken for a slave.

John J. Lane.

"March 13, 1837."

The next two advertisements we cut from the "New Orleans Picayune" of Sept. 2, 1846:

"$25 Reward. – Ran away from the plantation of Madame Fergus Duplantier, on or about the 27th of June, 1846, a bright mulatto, named Ned, very stout built, about 5 feet 11 inches high, speaks English and French, about 35 years old, waddles in his walk. He may try to pass himself for a white man, as he is of a very clear color, and has sandy hair. The above reward will be paid to whoever will bring him to Madame Duplantier's plantation, Manchac, or lodge him in some jail where he can be conveniently obtained."

"$200 Reward. – Ran away from the subscriber, last November, a white negro man, about 35 years old, height about 5 feet 8 or 10 inches, blue eyes, has a yellow woolly head, very fair skin, (particularly under his clothes)… Said negro man was raised in Columbia, S.C. and is well known by the name of Dick Frazier… He was lately known to be working on the railroad in Alabama, near Moore's Turn Out, and passed as a white man, by the name of Jesse Teams. I will give the above reward for his delivery in any jail, so that I can get him; and I will give $500 for sufficient proof to convict, in open court, any man who carried him away.

J. D. Allen.

"Barnwell Court House, S.C.

"P.S. Said man has a good-shaped foot and leg, and his foot is very small and hollow."

In the "New Orleans Bee" of June 22, 1831, P. Bahi advertises as a runaway "Maria, with a clear, white complexion." Ellen Craft is as white as our own sisters. Wm. W. Brown ("Narrative," p. 34), describing a gang of slaves who were under his charge, and destined to supply the New Orleans market, thus speaks of one who attracted the attention of the passengers and the crew: —

"It was a beautiful girl, apparently about twenty yeas of age, perfectly white, with straight, light hair, and blue eyes. But it was not the whiteness of her skin that created such a sensation among those who gazed upon her: it was her almost unparalleled beauty. She had been on the boat but a short time before the attention of all the passengers, including the ladies, had been called to her; and the common topic of conversation was about the beautiful slave-girl."

A friend, a resident for some time in New Orleans, describes to us a very beautiful slave he saw there, who had light curling hair, blue eyes, and almost a blonde complexion. After having been kept as a mistress by her owner, he finally sold her to pay his debts! No isolated case is exhibited by Wm. W. Brown when he relates the history of poor Cynthia!

Is any sickly sentimentalist shocked at these recitals? Be of stout heart! Do not Christian bishops, and hundreds of other reverend fathers, – the messengers of God's everlasting truth to our souls, – assure us that slavery, "AS IT EXISTS," is right; and that, consequently, the fundamental maxim of slavery, "the child follows the condition of the mother," is right also! Why, then, should not the children of slave-women by white fathers be rightfully slaves? Of what consequence, then, is the pollution of the soul of the mother, compared with the fact of her increased value as a commodity? How utterly insignificant is the fact that a father holds his own children in slavery, compared with the advantages notoriously derived from such an improvement in the slave-stock? In sober, literal truth, the brother owns the body of his sister, and the sister that of her brother, – so sacred is the marriage-state of slaves! If the father wishes to repair the wrong he has done, the law forbids his teaching his own child to read or write! If he is poor, too poor to pay his debts, a creditor may seize his child in its very cradle, and sell it at auction to pay the debt! It ought not to be otherwise! Is it not agreeable to the order of Divine Providence, that a child should be sold to pay his father's debts? How fitting it is for Mr. Jones and Bishop Freeman to teach such a vendible commodity to say, "Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother"!

Does any reader still doubt whether an owner thus has uncontrolled authority over the body of his female slave? Let him read the following extract from an opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina, – the Old North State, whence Bishop Ives has long since ceased to weep over the "imaginary sufferings" of the slaves! To avoid a chastisement, a female slave ran off, and, on her refusal to stop when called, was shot at and wounded. Judge Ruffin, in delivering the opinion of the court (State vs. Mann, 2 Dev. Rep. 263), says: —

"The inquiry here is, whether a cruel and unreasonable battery on a slave by the hirer is indictable?.. In criminal proceedings, and, indeed, in reference to all other persons but the general owner, the hirer and possessor of a slave, in relation to both rights and duties, is, for the time being, the owner…

"With slavery it is far otherwise. The end is the profit of the master, his security, and the public peace. The subject is one doomed in his own person, and in his posterity, to live without knowledge, and without capacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that others may reap the fruits.

"What moral considerations shall be addressed to such a being to convince him what it is impossible but that the most stupid must feel and know can never be true, that he is thus to labor upon a principle of natural duty, or for the sake of his own personal happiness? Such services can only be expected from one who has no will of his own, who surrenders his will in explicit obedience to that of another. Such obedience is the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over the body. There is nothing else which can operate to produce the effect. The power of the master must be absolute to render the submission of the slave perfect. I most freely confess my sense of the harshness of this proposition. I feel it as deeply as any man can. And, as a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it. But, in the actual condition of things, it must be so. There is no remedy. This discipline belongs to slavery."[O]

Judge Ruffin had not enjoyed the benefit of the instruction imparted some years later by Bishops Ives and Freeman. If he had, he would not thus have followed the dictate of a "desperately wicked" heart, and have repudiated the discipline of slavery as morally wrong!

The Rev. Robert J. Breckenridge, of the Presbyterian Church, himself a slaveholder, was a delegate to the State Emancipation Convention recently held in Kentucky. In a speech made by him before the Convention, he is reported to have said ("Louisville Examiner"), that —

"The system of slavery denies to a whole class of human beings the sacredness of marriage and of home, compelling them to live in a state of concubinage; for, in the eye of the law, no colored slave-man is the husband of any wife in particular, nor any slave-woman the wife of any husband in particular; no slave-man is the father of any children in particular, and no slave-child is the child of any parent in particular."

Who will venture even to conceive, much less compute, the deep degradation caused by the denial of marriage to the slaves?