Newspaper Page Text
1852.]
ing been whipped to death by her mas
ter.
“ ‘An abominable business, —perfectly
I horrible !’ she exclaimed, as she entered
i the room.
“ ‘Pray, what iniquity has turned up
now V said he.
“‘What now’? why, those folks have
whipped Prue to death !’ said Miss Ophe
lia, going on, with great strength of de
tail, into the story, and enlarging on its
most shocking particulars.
“‘I thought it would come to that,
some time,’ said St. Clare, going on with
his paper. *
“ ‘Thought so !—an’t you going to do
any thing about it?’ said Miss Ophelia.
‘Haven’t you got any select-men, or any
body, to interfere and look after such
matters V
“ ‘lt’s commonly supposed that the
‘property interest is a sufficient guard in
these cases. If people choose to ruin
their own possessions, I don’t know what’s
to be done. It seems the poor creature
was a thief and a drunkard ; and so there
won’t be much hope to get up sympathy
for her.’
“ ‘lt is perfectly outrageous —it is hor
rid, Augustine ! It will certainly bring
down vengeance upon you.’
“ ‘My dear cousin, I didn’t do it, and I
can’t help it; I would, if I could. If low
minded, brutal people will act like them
selves, what am Itodo ? They have ab
solute control; they are irresponsible de
spots. There would be no use in inter
fering ; there is no law that amounts to
any thing practically , for such a case.
The best we can do is to shut our eyes
and ears, and let it alone. It’s the only
resource left us.’ ”
In a subsequent part of the same con
versation, St. Clare says—
“ ‘For pity’s sake, for shame’s sake,
because we are men born of women, and
not savage beasts, many of us do not, and
dare not, —we would scorn to use the full
pow’er which our savage laws put into our
hands. And he who goes furthest , and
does the worst, only uses within limits the
power that the law gives him .’ ”
We have italicised a sentence or two
of this conversation to direct attention to
the reckless manner in which our author
ess puts loose statements into the mouths
of her characters. We are told in the
appendix that this incident of the killing
of Prue occurred “under the personal ob
servation” of a brother of the authoress
who was a clerk to a large mercantile
i house in New Orleans at the time. If we
understand the force of language, it is
here meant that this gentleman was an
! actual eye-witness of the murder. If so,
I then was he, before God and man, an
; accessory to the crime. For he had only,
!in the event that his own interposition
I would not have sufficed to prevent it, to
SOUTHERN LITERARY GAZETTE.
cal! in the police to have saved Prue’s
life. And failing to do this —standing by,
in cold blood, while a fellow-being was
brutally scourged to death without an
effort to rescue her —not even volunteer
ing his evidence subsequently to ensure
the punishment of the murderers, in what
light can we regard his conduct other than
as making him particeps criminis of
Prue’s death ? But Mrs. Stowe tells us,
through St. Clare, that “there is no law
that amounts to anything” in such cases,
and that he who goes furthest in severity
towards his slave, i. e. to the deprivation
of an eye or a limb or even the destruc
tion of life, “only uses within limits the
power that the law gives him.” This is
an awful and tremendous charge, which
lightly and unwarrantably made, must
subject the maker to a fearful account
ability. Let us see how the matter
stands upon the statute-book of Louisiana.
By referring to the Civid Code of that
State, Chapter 3rd, Article 173, the read
er will find this general declaration —
“The slave is entirely subject to the
will of his master, who may correct and
chastise him, though not ivith unusual ri
gour, nor so as to maim or mutilate him ,
or to expose him to the danger of loss of
life , or to cause his death.”
On a subsequent page of the same vo
lume and chapter, Article 192, we find
provision made for the slave’s protection
against his master’s cruelty, in the state
ment that one of two cases, in which a
master car. be compelled to sell his slave,
is
“When the master shall be convicted
of cruel treatment of his slave, and the
judge shall deem proper to pronounce,
besides the penalty established for such
cases, that the slave shall be sold at pub
lic auction, in order to place him out of the
reach of the power which the master has
abused .”
A code, thus watchful of the negro’s
safety in life and limb, confines not its
guardianship to inhibitory clauses, but
prescribes extreme penalties in case of
their infraction. In the Code Noir (Black
Code) of Louisiana, under the head of
Crimes and Offences, No. 55, xvi, it is
laid down that
“If any person whatsoever shall wil
fully kill his slave or the slave of another
person, the said person being convicted
thereof shall be tried and condemned
agreeably to the laws.”
And because negro testimony is inad
missible in the courts of the State, and
therefore the evide; ee of such crimes
might be with difficulty supplied, it is
further provided that
“If any slave be mutilated, beaten or
ill treated contrary to the true intent and
meaning of this act, when no one shall
be present, in such case, the owner or
other person having the management of
said slave thus mutilated, shall be deem-
ed responsible and guilty of the said of
fence, and shall be prosecuted without
further evidence, unless the said owner
or other person so as aforesaid can prove
the contrary by means of good and suffi
cient evidence, or can clear himself by his
own oath, which said oath every court
under the cognizance of which such of
fence shall have been examined and tried,
is by this act authorized to administer.”
Code Noir. Crimes and Offences , 50, xvii.
Enough has been quoted to establish
the utter falsity of the statement, made
by our authoress through St. Ciare, that
brutal masters are “ irresponsible de
spots”—at least in Louisiana. It would
extend our review to a most unreason
able length, should we undertake to give
the law, with regard to the murder of
slaves, as it stands in each of the South
ern States. The crime is a rare one, and
therefore the Reporters have had few
cases to record. We may refer, how
ever, to two. In Fields v. the State of
Tennessee , the plaintiff in error was indict
ed in the circuit court of Maury county,
for the murder of a negro slave. lie
pleaded not guilty : and at the trial was
found guilty of wilfully and feloniously
slaying of the slave. From this sen
tence, he prosecuted his writ of error,
which was disallowed, the court affirming
the original judgment. The opinion of
the court as given by Peck, J., overflow’s
with the spirit of enlightened humanity.
He concludes thus—
“lt is well said oy one of the judges of
North Carolina, that the master has a
right to exact the labour of his slave :
thus far, the rights of the slave are sus
pended ; but this gives the master no
right over the life of his slave. I add to
this saying of the judge, that law which
says thou shalt not kill, protects the
slave : and he is within its very letter.
Law r , reason, Christianity and common
humanity, all point out one way.” In
Yerger’s Tenn. Reports. 156.
In the General Court of Virginia, June
Term, 1851, in Souther v. The Common
wealth, it was held that the killing of a
slave by his master and owner, by wilful
and excessive whipping, is murder in the
first degree ; though it may not have been
the purpose of the master and owner to
kill the slave.” 7th Grattan’s Reports.
673.
Having placed this matter of the irre
sponsibility of masters and the insecurity
of slaves in its proper light, we revert to
the history of Uncle Tom. Soon after
the death of Eva, St. Clare determined
to emancipate that good and faithful ser
vant, and actually took the initiatory
steps for the purpose. Uncle Tom look
ed forward with delight to his return to
Chloe and his children upon “the old
plantation.” But the fates had ordered
otherwise. St. Clare is brought home
one night from a case, mortally wounded
197