THE

ANTI-SLAVERY RECORD.

VOL. II. No. VIII.

AUGUST, 1836.

WHOLE NO. 20.

COULD THEY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES?

"GUARDIANSHIP! GUARDIANSHIP!! The slaves, as a body, are a poor, lazy, ignorant set of savages, so accustomed to depend upon their masters for the necessaries of life, that if suddenly freed they would not know how to take care of themselves, and would be inevitably plunged into much greater suffering than they now endure." Such is one of the arguments against paying wages for labor and yielding to people their just rights. Says J. K. Paulding on Slavery, page 277, "To set the slaves of the south at once, or at any time, free, must inevitably produce similar consequences to those which would result from suddenly withdrawing children from under the wing of the parent, and setting them adrift on the ocean of the world, without experience and without protection."

Well, if the slaves are unable to take care of themselves, no doubt they ought to be taken care of-common humanity requires it. The question is, how people, who are supposed to be unable to take care of themselves, should be taken care of. We cannot answer this question more to our own satisfaction than in the language of the law of the state of Mississippi in regard to "idiots, lunatics, and persons non compos mentis"-i. e., who have not mind enough to take care of their bodies. "The Orphans Court of each county in this state is hereby authorized and empowered, in their respective counties, on request made by the friends or relatives of any idiot, lunatic, or person non compos mentis, or by the overseer of the poor, for the district in which such idiot, &c., resides, by writ to direct the sheriff of said county to summon twelve good, discreet and lawful men of the county, and neighborhood of the residence of such persons, to make inquisition thereto on oath; and if the person said to be an idiot, &c., shall be adjudged by such inquest (or a majority of them) to be incapable of taking care of himself or herself, they shall certify the same, under their

hands and seals, to the Orphan's Court, and the said Orphan's Court shall appoint some suitable person or persons to be guardian or guardians to such idiot, &c.; directing and empowering such guardian or guardians to take care of the person and estate, both real and personal, of such idiot, &c. And the said guardian or guardians shall make a true and perfect inventory of the said estate, and return the same within the same time, and account with the Orphan's Court as often, and in the same manner as guardians to orphans are before directed by this act, and shall give bond and security in like manner; and the said court shall have the same power and control over such guardian or guardians, to all intents and purposes, as over guardians to orphans."-(Revised Code of the Laws of Mississippi, chap. 9, sec. 136. Natchez, 1824.) Another section of the same law makes it the duty of these guardians to render up the property and control of their wards, whenever in the judgment of the Orphan's Court such wards are able to take care of themselves.

To such sort of guardianship there can be no objection. It is not slavery. It does not entitle the guardian to use the labor and property of his ward without responsibility, and without reference to the rights of the owner. It does not allow him to transmit the ward and hisoffspring from generation to generation, to his posterity, along with his other goods and chattels. It does not allow him to whip out of him as much labor as he pleases. It is a temporary relation which ceases with the necessity which created it. If then it shall be proved that the slaves in Mississippi cannot take care of themselves, it will not follow that they ought to be retained in slavery another moment, but that they ought to have the benefit of the law above quoted. But, are the slaves capable of taking care of themselves? As the Orphan's Courts do not seem likely to make any serious inquest into this matter, we propose to take up the inquiry to the best of our ability.

The question must be settled by FACTS. The opinions of all the slaveholders in the world cannot weigh a feather, because they are interested, their guardianship is too profitable. The Rev. James Curtin, a missionary slaveholder of Antigua, when examined before a Committee of the House of Lords, in 1832, thought it would take "half a century" to fit the slaves of Antigua for freedom-the generality of them "would not do at all to be freed." But it has since been found that they were all fit on the 1st of August, 1834. Sir C. B. Codrington, who owned the whole population of the island of Barbuda, besides many hundred slaves in Antigua, wrote to Mr. Buxton

in 1832, that he would be glad to free his negroes, but his agent had written him that if he did so, not one fourth of them "would be alive at the end of two years."* They have been free two years, and the British public has not yet been troubled with any complaints of their starvation. The West India slaveholders, generally, predicted universal ruin as the effect of emancipation. Never were false prophets more signally put to shame. If the opinions of British slaveholders were worthless, why should we rely on those of American slave holders?

Neither can we rely on the opinions and general statements of mere travelers and sojourners. Because a man has seen slaves with his own eyes, it does not follow that he is competent to pronounce against their ability to take care of themselves. His testimony is inadmissible in this court; 1, because the chance is, that he sympathizes with the class with which he associated; 2, because he may have been deceived by the slaves, who always pretend to more ignorance, recklessness and contentment than they really possess, for the sake of lightening their bondage. Stupidity is worth too much to the back and shoulders of a slave not to be counterfeited. It is the fate of most travelers and many of the masters to take a good deal of this counterfeit for true

coin.

We shall appeal to facts, stated by the advocates of slavery themselves, or which have been open to their cross-examination.

I. It is a general fact that the slaves industriously cultivate their own patches, after having performed all the labor required by their masters on the great plantation. And this they do notwithstanding their allowance, which is said by their masters to be sufficient for their subsist ́ence. The slaves in the British colonies received from their masters, as a general thing, only a few salt herrings weekly, and permission to labor one day every fortnight, besides Sundays, upon their provision grounds. And as they thus worked out their own subsistence by laboring not more than 78 days in the year, it was very rationally argued that they would be able and willing to get their living when allowed to work for themselves the whole 365. But it may be said, the West Indian slaves had been always trained to labor for themselves by necessity, hence when they were freed they had the habit of taking care of themselves, along with more abundant opportunity; whereas the American slave, having been accustomed to depend upon his master both for food and clothing, will be thrown upon the world Anti-Slavery Reporter vol 5 p 301.

with neither the forebodings of want nor the habits of providence. Let us for the sake of the argument grant that the allowance of the American slave is abundantly adequate to the supply of his animal wants; what say the witnesses?

The late Edwin C. Holland, Esq. of South Carolina, in his "Refutation of the Calumnies circulated against the Southern and Western States, respecting the institution and existence of Slavery among them," &c.—published in Charleston, (S. C.) 1822-has introduced the statements of a number of the most extensive planters in that state, in relation to the treatment of the slaves.

BENJAMIN D. ROPER, Esq., says, "It is not uncommon for an industrious negro to have finished his task by three or four o'clock. In common, each hand is allowed to cultivate a task (patch?) on their own account, and time allowed them to prepare and plant their corn, peas, pompions, melons, &c. &c. In addition to this, sufficient ground contiguous to their dwellings is allowed them for gardens, from which many of them raise fruit and vegetables amply sufficient for their families. Many of the negroes raise hogs, ducks and fowls, and have their bee hives, whence they indulge themselves in some of the luxuries as well as conveniences of life," p. 50. This witness states this to be the general fact on plantations, so far as his "knowledge extends." And he adds in regard to these very slaves, that "they are fed half the year on corn, and the other half on potatoes-that their dwellings are commodious-that they enjoy as good medical attendance as the master and at his expense, and that "they are clad in winter with the best woollen plains, and in summer with osnaburgs." Please to weigh the testimony. The witness could have no motive to overrate the industry of the slave. If he has not overrated the liberality of the master, then che proves that the slave will labor with no other motive than to supply himself with luxuries and elegancies-if he has, still the slave labors with no other motive than to relieve his necessities.

Says ELIAS HORRY, Esq., "Each grown negro is allowed a small field, say from a quarter to half an acre of land, or more if he desires it, which he plants, and the profits of which he appropriates exclusively to his own use. They are permitted to raise poultry of every description, which they either sell to their master or send to market. If they are called upon to do any extra work in their own time, they are regularly paid for it. In one instance I paid in one year to a carpenter belonging to me $150, for extra services of himself and two sons, in rearing the frames of five negro houses, I finding stuff," pp. 56, 57.

Still stronger is the testimony of George EdwarDS, Esq. Speaking of the slaves on his own plantation, he says, that their provision grounds are cultivated for them under the administration of his managers and drivers, and yet after this excess of care for them, the negroes still manifest a strong disposition to take care of themselves,— for he adds, "Independent of their crop, I permit them to raise hogs and poultry of every description, and many of them supply themselves with bacon during the winter, and have hogs to dispose of," p. 49. So it seems, let the planters take what care they will of their human property, that property always seizes every scantling of time and opportunity to take care of itself.

Similar testimony is to be found in Paulding's recent "Defence of Slavery." He introduces letters from two distinguished slaveholders in Virginia, in reply to a set of interrogatories which he had proposed, and himself vouches for the truth of the pictures which they present. One of his witnesses, "a gentleman possessing a large estate, and a very considerable number of slaves, in what is usually called Lower Virginia," thus speaks of the care which the slaves take of themselves in the time left at their own disposal. "A great many fowls are raised: I have this year known ten dollars' worth sold by one man at one time. One of the chief sources of profit is the fur of the muskrat; for the purpose of catching which the marshes on the estate have been parcelled out and appropriated from time immemorial, and are held by a tenure little short of fee simple,” p. 192. Here are notions of property as well as provident industry among these poor non compotes, who do not know how to take care of themselves! Again, says the same witness, "Besides the food furnished by me, (and which he had just pronounced 'abundant,') nearly all the servants are able to make some addition from their private stores; and there is, among the adults, hardly an instance of one so improvident as not to do it!!" p. 195. Mark this; the slaves are so provident that they add luxuries to abundance, and that by their spontaneous labor, after toiling enough to support their masters on the worn out tobacco-fields of lower Virginia! Could not these slaves, if they had nothing else to do, take care of themselves ?*

"My

The same witness states a fact on page 198, with comments, which show that the masters, rather than the slaves, mistake idleness for liberty. nearest neighbor," says he, "a man of immense wealth, owned a favorite servant, a fine fellow, with polished manners and excellent disposition, who reads and writes, and is thoroughly versed in the duties of butler and housekeeper, in the performance of which he was trusted without limit. This man was, on the death of his master, emancipated with a legacy of $6,000, besides about $2.000 more which he had been permitted to accumulate, and had