Page images
[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]






FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE, West India Apprenticeship,-










It is supposed by many that the only class of persons who feel the pinching of poverty and want at the South are the blacks, either bond or free. A little reflection will show that it must be far otherwise. It is plain that where the slave population does but little, if at all, outnumber the whites, and where there are many planters owning their hundreds of slaves, there must be many white men who own none. These must, and in fact they do constitute a large class. What is the bearing of slavery upon them? This question is well answered in the NARRATIVE of CHARLES BALL. We select a passage on this point which occurs as a sort of philosophical episode, and to the reasoning of which the thread of the narrative affords abundant confirmation:

"No man works in South Carolina except under the impulse of necessity. In this state of things many men of limited fortunes rear up families of children without education, and without the means of supporting an expensive style of living. The sons, when grown up, of necessity commingle with the other young people of the country, and bring with them into the affairs of the world, nothing upon which they can pride themselves, except that they are white men, and are not obliged to work for a living.

"This false pride has infected the whole mass of the white population; and the young man, whose father has half a dozen children, and an equal number of slaves, looks with unaffected disdain upon the son of his father's neighbor, who owns no slaves, because the son of the non-slaveholder must work for his bread, whilst the son of the master of half a dozen negroes contrives to support himself in a sort of lazy poverty, only one remove from actual penury.

Every man who is able to procure a subsister.ce without labor, regards himself a gentleman from this circumstance slcne, if he has nothing else to sustain his pretensions. These poor gentlemen are the worst members of society, and the least productive of benefit, either to themselves or to their country. They are prone to horse-racing, cock-fighting, gambling, and all sorts of vices common to the country. Having no livelihood, and being engaged in to pursuit, they hope to distinguish themselves by running to excess in what they call fashionable amusements, or sporting exercises. These people are universally detested by the slaves, and are indeed far more tyrannical than the great slaveholders themselves, or any other portion of the white population, the overseers excepted.

"A man who is master of only four or five slaves is generally the most ready of all to apprehend a black man, whom he may happen to catch straying from his plantation; and generally whips him the most ur mercifully for this offence. The law gives him the same authority to arrest the person of a slave seen travelling without his pass, that it vests in the owner of five hundred negroes; and the experience of all ages, that petty tyrants are the most oppressive, seems fully verified in the cotton country.

"A person who has not been in the slaveholding states can never fully understand the bonds that hold society together there, or appreciate the rules which prescribe the boundaries of the pretensions of the several orders of men who compose the body politic of those communities; and after all that I have written, and all that I shall write in this book, the reader who has never resided,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine.

No. VII-For April, 1937.

By what magic is it that our great men have agreed together to make fools of themselves? It is not difficult to conceive how a southern slave might mistake for a pass an open letter, requesting the first person he should meet to give him a sound flogging; but it would be a rare piece of stupidity, even for him, after once getting the lashes well laid on, to persevere in using his unlucky paper for a pass. Such doltishness, however, is wisdom itself compared with the conduct of our great men in Church and State. They have the more than slavish-more than asinine stupidity, to carry about with them open letters recommending every honest man to consider and treat them as a set of hypocrit ical villains; and yet they gravely pretend, as if no body could interpret but themselves, that these letters are passes or orders, authorizing them to go to certain people, and commit certain robberies. Flogged ever so often—their passes hold good.

The papers to which we refer are the Constitution of the country and the Holy Bible, according to both of which the taking of liberty without due process of law, stands in the highest class of villany.

Well, here are our reverend Doctors of Divinity, with the morals, and consciences, and eternal destinies of the nation in their keeping, who in one breath preach from the Bible that it's "a mortal sin to steal a pin," and, in the next, appeal to the same Bible to show that stealing a man or a woman is no sin at all! Are they really unable to read their pass, or do they think we are?-or, do they think

posterity will not read it? Surely, if these Divines are resolved to go on advocating and practicing wholesale robbery, the sooner they fling away their Bibles the fewer floggings they will get.

And here is a successful politician-a pure democrat, an "equal rights" man-who has aimed at the high dignity of being the whole people's head-servant-whence we, one of the people who placed him where he is, claim the right to speak freely of his movements. In his first step, if he has not made a fool of himself, he has suffered others to do it. On the Holy Bible which forbids all oppression and fraud, does he swear to administer according to a Constitution which ordains that no person shall be deprived of LIBERTY without due process of law. With these two passes he sets out, and the first piece of service he does the people is to tell them that it was very "wise" in our forefathers to violate the Constitution in a million or two of cases, and be silent about it!—He means to do as they did, &c. To say nothing about votes, posterity has rods in pickle, and the sooner such politicians get rid of the Constitution, the sooner they will be rid of a recommendation that these rods be applied to their own backs. Let them take our advice, and hereafter put a coffle-chain in the place of the sacred book, and on it swear to support the "corner stone" of our republican institutions, according to the views of George McDuffie. It is a wise thing for a fellow who is determined on a piece of villany, to have papers which will not go against him on trial. None of the patriarchs, before Calhoun and McDuffie, gave the genuine pass to the pockets of the laboring people,

[blocks in formation]



(Continued from page 133.)

An examination of the Scripture proof that "the Mosaic institutions recognize the lawfulness of slavery," in a pamphlet entitled " View of the subject of Slavery contained in the Biblical Repertory, for April, 1836, in which the Scripture argument it is believed, is very clearly and justly exhibited. Pittsburgh, 1836. For gratuitous distribution."

A SLAVE is one who is bought, sold, or held as property. This feature of slavery is recognized by the laws of all our American slave states. According to a law of South Carolina, "slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken and reputed to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, their administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." (See Stroud.)

In the paragraph under review, we have three texts to prove that "slavery was tolerated among the ancient people of God;" and in a note a number of texts "on the manner in which slaves were acquired," and as to "the manner in which they were to be treated."

1. Let us examine the proof that "slavery was tolerated among the ancient people of God." The first is, "Abraham had servants in his family bought with money." Gen. xvii. 13. Here we have the monstrous assertion that the term servant necessarily means a slave. This is assumed by all who undertake to justify slaveholding from the Scriptures. Professor Hodge, in his Commentary on the Romans, informs us that the word servant is, in Greek, a

« PreviousContinue »