The extent of this punishment varied all the way from ten stripes for "presuming to come upon the plantation of any person without leave from his master," up to thirty-nine for grand and petty larceny, between the punishment for which there was no difference, and for "buying or selling without a written permission from his master." This latter seems to have been regarded as quite an offense, as we have frequent references to it,—the punishment fixed being as great as that attached to misdemeanors which we would consider much graver. It merely consisted in the slave buying or selling anything whatever without his master's written permission,—such permission being necessary before he could lawfully carry on even the smallest of commercial exchanges.
Even in our present state of boasted enlightenment it is questioned by many thinkers and criminologists whether we have been wise in anywhere substituting the jail for the whipping post for minor offenses. At all events, as a deterrent to petty crime among our colored brethren one sound thrashing, "well laid on," would most likely prove more efficacious than any jail sentence imposed by a latter day justice of the peace.
It was unlawful for a slave to leave his master's premises without permission, and an offense for a negro, bond or free, to have in his possession any weapons of any kind. The penalty for engaging in any "riots, routs or unlawful assemblages" was the maximum thirty-nine lashes, and the same act provided that if any white person should be convicted in the Circuit Court of "being in company with slaves or free negroes at any unlawful meeting" he should be fined twenty dollars, to go to the informer, and, moreover, receive not exceeding twenty lashes on his bare back, at the discretion of the court.
It was in defining such unlawful meetings or assemblages to include "all assemblies of slaves, or free negroes or mulattoes, mixing and associating with such slaves, above the number of five, at any place of public resort, or at a meeting house, in the night, or at any school, for teaching them reading or writing, either in the day or night, under whatsoever pretext" that our slave holding law makers sinned so grievously in the eyes of the abolitionist. While it may be observed that this particular act contained nothing to legally prevent a master from teaching his slave to read and write, yet the policy of the law at that time is of course well known to us all to have been opposed to any such education.
I shall not engage in any discussion of the question of negro education nor seek to air my personal views in regard to it, but merely venture the statement that the experience of a third of a century, involving the expenditure of millions of dollars by the white race upon it,—the moral, social and intellectual condition of the negro today calmly and fairly considered,—have not demonstrated the unwisdom of the slave holders position of seventy-six years ago, nor yet proven an adherence to opposite views to be for the best interests of either race.
In this connection it was provided that nothing contained in any of these enactments should be so construed as to prevent a master from allowing his slave to go to places of religious worship, sagely demanding, however, "that such worship be conducted by a regularly ordained or licensed white minister, or attended by at least two discreet and reputable white persons, appointed by some regular church or religious society,"—it not being lawful for a negro to exercise any of the functions of a minister of the Gospel,—though a master might allow his slave to preach to his own slaves, but to none others.
It was unlawful for a white man to do any trading whatsoever with a slave on the Sabbath, without the consent of the master in writing first being had by the slave, and with a free negro it was unlawful on that day under any circumstances,—our early fathers seemingly being at all times possessed of a very high regard for the general efficacy and saving grace of a written permission from the master.
The right of a slave to act in defense of himself when assaulted by a white person was at all times recognized by the law, and while it was an offense punishable by thirty-nine lashes for a slave to "use abusive or provoking language to, or to lift his hand in opposition to a white person" yet no punishment was to be inflicted where it appeared to the justice that he was acting in self defense.
It was not lawful for a slave to possess horses, mules, sheep, cattle, hogs or dogs, nor could he cultivate any cotton for his own use,—the only penalty attached, however, being the forfeiture of the property,—except as to dogs, for the keeping of which he might be punished with not exceeding twenty-five stripes. Cruel or unusual punishment, for various plantation or household offenses, could not be inflicted on a slave by his master,—under penalty of a fine of five hundred dollars for each offense, the fine to go to the state treasury, for the benefit of the "literary fund."
The various misdemeanors enumerated here constituted the bulk of crimes of which it was thought probable the slave would be guilty,—there being but few others contemplated in our early criminal legislation.