Q. But I have been told that the slaves sometimes work for themselves.
A. When they happen to have kind masters, they are sometimes allowed a part of the time to earn something for themselves; but the laws are extremely inefficient for the protection of property thus acquired. If a white man sees fit to seize the products of their industry, the law in most cases affords no redress; because in slave States a colored man is never allowed to give evidence against a white man, under any circumstances. Any note of hand, or written contract with a slave is worth no more than a promissory note to a dog; because no slave can bring an action at law. In several of the States, a slave is liable to punishment if it is ascertained that he has acquired any property.
Q. I have been told that masters are allowed to kill their slaves. Can this be true?
A. The laws do indeed nominally consider the killing of a slave as murder; but no instance has ever been recorded of a white man executed for killing a slave. One law on this subject has the following strange qualification: “Except said slave die of moderate punishment.” As if any punishment, that occasioned death, could be moderate! If a hundred blacks or mulattoes, either bond or free, should see a slave murdered, it avails nothing against the murderer; because the laws of slave States do not allow a colored person, under any circumstances, to testify against a white man. The laws of South Carolina favor the master to such a degree, that when accused of murdering a slave, he may be absolved simply upon his own oath, that he did not commit the crime!
Q. But I am told that white men are not unfrequently prosecuted for cruelty to slaves; and this looks as if the laws afforded the poor creatures some protection.
A. I have read not a few Reports of Cases in Southern Courts; and those reports did more than any thing else to make me an abolitionist. Prosecutions are always brought for the master’s interest—never for the protection or redress of the slave. In Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 1818, you will find the case of Jourdan vs. Patten. In this case a lady sued a neighboring proprietor for the damage of putting out the only eye of one of her slaves. The Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay the lady the sum of twelve hundred dollars; in consideration of which, the slave should be placed in his possession. The lady received all the money, as an indemnification for the loss of property; but the poor slave not only received no atonement for his sufferings, but was actually given to the very man that had knocked his eye out! This is a fair sample of the nature of all such prosecutions. In Nott & McCord’s South Carolina Reports, 1818, it is stated that a slave belonging to Mrs. E. Witsell, was shot through the head by two men who were hunting runaway negroes. The lady commenced an action to recover the value of her slave. The judge told the jury that circumstances might exist to authorize the killing of a negro, without the sanction of a magistrate, or even the order of a militia officer; but it was thought such circumstances were not connected with this case; the lady was therefore entitled to compensation for injury done to her property. As for the poor slave himself, his parents, his wife, or his children, they were never once thought of in the matter.
Q. But do you really believe they hunt negroes with dogs and guns, as some people say?
A. There cannot be the slightest doubt of the fact. Dogs are trained for that express purpose. The planters justify the practice, by saying it is absolutely necessary for their own safety; because runaway negroes, who collect in the woods and swamps, will soon begin to commit depredations on the neighboring estates. Thus the evils inevitably growing out of this bad system are made use of to justify its cruelties. Free laborers would have no inducement to run away and hide in swamps. It would obviously be for their own interest to keep at work. These negro hunts seem to be entered into with all the keen excitement of sportsmen going out to hunt squirrels or hares. A letter written near Edenton, N.C. among other items of news, states: “We have had great negro shooting lately.” A gentleman well known in the literary world resided for some time in the family of a Georgia planter; and he himself stated to me that three negro hunts took place during the first nine months of his stay there. He said, that one night hearing a noise below stairs, he hastened to ascertain the cause. “The gentlemen of the family were cleaning and loading their guns, trying their flints, and going through the usual preparations, apparently for a deer hunt, as buck shot and bullets were in demand. The children of the family had partaken of the general excitement, and arisen from their beds. As I entered the room, I could hear one of the youngest say, ‘Why, pa, you wouldn’t kill Ralph, would you?’ ‘I would take him, and sell him, and get money for him,’ said the next of age. ‘You will only lame him, so as to seize him, I suppose,’ said the mother. ‘I would rather kill him than the best fat buck in the country,’ replied the father, as he rammed down the heavy charge. The moonlight from the window glanced along the barrel of the piece, and caught the eye of the eldest boy. The reflected light kindled up his glance with something of an unnatural flash, but in vivid sympathy with the paternal look and attitude. The anticipated joy of vengeance seemed to be the predominating emotion.”
Q. If the laws are as you say, I should think the slaves did not stand a fair chance when they are wrongfully accused.