time were agonizing; she could lie in no position but on her back, which was sore from scourgings, as I can testify, from personal inspection, and her only place of rest was the floor, on a blanket. These outrages were committed in a family where the mistress daily read the scriptures, and assembled her children for family worship. She was accounted, and was really, so far as almsgiving was concerned, a charitable woman, and tender hearted to the poor; and yet this suffering slave, who was the seamstress of the family, was continually in her presence, sitting in her chamber to sew, or engaged in her other household work, with her lacerated and bleeding back, her mutilated mouth, and heavy iron collar, without, so far as appeared, exciting any feelings of compassion.
A highly intelligent slave, who panted after freedom with ceaseless longings, made many attempts to get possession of himself. For every offence he was punished with extreme severity. At one time he was tied up by his hands to a tree, and whipped until his back was one gore of blood. To this terrible infliction he was subjected at intervals for several weeks, and kept heavily ironed while at his work. His master one day accused him of a fault, in the usual terms dictated by passion and arbitrary power; the man protested his innocence, but was not credited. He again repelled the charge with honest indignation. His master’s temper rose almost to frenzy; and seizing a fork, he made a deadly plunge at the breast of the slave. The man being far his superior in strength, caught the arm, and dashed the weapon on the floor. His master grasped at his throat, but the slave disengaged himself, and rushed from the apartment, having made his escape, he fled to the woods; and after wandering about for many months, living on roots and berries, and enduring every hardship, he was arrested and committed to jail. Here he lay for a considerable time, allowed scarcely food enough to sustain life, whipped in the most shocking manner, and confined in a cell so loathsome, that when his master visited him, he said the stench was enough to knock a man down. The filth had never been removed from the apartment since the poor creature had been immured in it. Although a black man, such had been the effect of starvation and suffering, that his master declared he hardly recognized him–his complexion was so yellow, and his hair, naturally thick and black, had become red and scanty; an infallible sign of long continued living on bad and insufficient food. Stripes, imprisonment, and the gnawings of hunger, had broken his lofty spirit for a season; and, to use his master’s own exulting expression, he was “as humble as a dog.” After a time he made another attempt to escape, and was absent so long, that a reward was offered for him, _dead or alive_. He eluded every attempt to take him, and his master, despairing of ever getting him again, offered to pardon him if he would return home. It is always understood that such intelligence will reach the runaway; and accordingly, at the entreaties of his wife and mother, the fugitive once more consented to return to his bitter bondage. I believe this was the last effort to obtain his liberty. His heart became touched with the power of the gospel; and the spirit which no inflictions could subdue, bowed at the cross of Jesus, and with the language on his lips–“the cup that my father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” submitted to the yoke of the oppressor, and wore his chains in unmurmuring patience till death released him. The master who perpetrated these wrongs upon his slave, was one of the most influential and honored citizens of South Carolina, and to his equals was bland, and courteous, and benevolent even to a proverb.
A slave who had been separated from his wife, because it best suited the convenience of his owner, ran away. He was taken up on the plantation where his wife, to whom he was tenderly attached, then lived. His only object in running away was to return to her–no other fault was attributed to him. For this offence he was confined in the stocks _six weeks_, in a miserable hovel, not weather-tight. He received fifty lashes weekly during that time, was allowed food barely sufficient to sustain him, and when released from confinement, was not permitted to return to his wife. His master, although himself a husband and a father, was unmoved by the touching appeals of the slave, who entreated that he might only remain with his wife, promising to discharge his duties faithfully; his master continued inexorable, and he was torn from his wife and family. The owner of this slave was a professing Christian, in full membership with the church, and this circumstance occurred when he was confined to his chamber during his last illness.
A punishment dreaded more by the slaves than whipping, unless it is unusually severe, is one which was invented by a female acquaintance of mine in Charleston–I heard her say so with much satisfaction. It is standing on one foot and holding the other in the hand. Afterwards it was improved upon, and a strap was contrived to fasten around the ankle and pass around the neck; so that the least weight of the foot resting on the strap would choke the person. The pain occasioned by this unnatural position was great; and when continued, as it sometimes was, for an hour or more, produced intense agony. I heard this same woman say, that she had the ears of her waiting maid _slit_ for some petty theft. This she told me in the presence of the girl, who was standing in the room. She often had the helpless victims of her cruelty severely whipped, not scrupling herself to wield the instrument of torture, and with her own hands inflict severe chastisement. Her husband was less inhuman than his wife, but he was often goaded on by her to acts of great severity. In his last illness I was sent for, and watched beside his death couch. The girl on whom he had so often inflicted punishment, haunted his dying hours; and when at length the king of terrors approached, he shrieked in utter agony of spirit, “Oh, the blackness of darkness, the black imps, I can see them all around me–take them away!” and amid such exclamations he expired. These persons were of one of the first families in Charleston.
A friend of mine, in whose veracity I have entire confidence, told me that about two years ago, a woman in Charleston with whom I was well acquainted, had starved a female slave to death. She was confined in a solitary apartment, kept constantly tied, and condemned to the slow and horrible death of starvation. This woman was notoriously cruel. To those who have read the narrative of James Williams I need only say, that the character of young Larrimore’s wife is an exact description of this female tyrant, whose countenance was ever dressed in smiles when in the presence of strangers, but whose heart was as the nether millstone toward her slaves.
As I was traveling in the lower country in South Carolina, a number of years since, my attention was suddenly arrested by an exclamation of horror from the coachman, who called out, “Look there, Miss Sarah, don’t you see?”–I looked in the direction he pointed, and saw a human head stuck up on a high pole. On inquiry, I found that a runaway slave, who was outlawed, had been shot there, his head severed from his body, and put upon the public highway, as a terror to deter slaves from running away.
On a plantation in North Carolina, where I was visiting, I happened one day, in my rambles, to step into a negro cabin; my compassion was instantly called forth by the object which presented itself. A slave, whose head was white with age, was lying in one corner of the hovel; he had under his head a few filthy rags but the boards were his only bed, it was the depth of winter, and the wind whistled through every part of the dilapidated building–he opened his languid eyes when I spoke, and in reply to my question, “What is the matter?” He said, “I am dying of a cancer in my side.”–As he removed the rags which covered the sore, I found that it extended half round the body, and was shockingly neglected. I inquired if he had any nurse. “No, missey,” was his answer, “but de people (the slaves) very kind to me, dey often steal time to run and see me and fetch me some ting to eat; if dey did not, I might starve.” The master and mistress of this man, who had been worn out in their service, were remarkable for their intelligence, and their hospitality knew no bounds towards those who were of their own grade in society: the master had for some time held the highest military office in North Carolina, and not long previous to the time of which I speak, was the Governor of the State.
On a plantation in South Carolina, I witnessed a similar case of suffering–an aged woman suffering under an incurable disease in the same miserably neglected situation. The “owner” of this slave was proverbially kind to her negroes; so much so, that the planters in the neighborhood said she spoiled them, and set a bad example, which might produce discontent among the surrounding slaves; yet I have seen this woman tremble with rage, when her slaves displeased her, and heard her use language to them which could only be expected from an inmate of Bridewell; and have known her in a gust of passion send a favorite slave to the workhouse to be severely whipped.
Another fact occurs to me. A young woman about eighteen, stated some circumstances relative to her young master, which were thought derogatory to his character; whether true or false, I am unable to say; she was threatened with punishment, but persisted in affirming that she had only spoken the truth. Finding her incorrigible, it was concluded to send her to the Charleston workhouse and have her whipt; she pleaded in vain for a commutation of her sentence, not so much because she dreaded the actual suffering, as because her delicate mind shrunk from the shocking exposure of her person to the eyes of brutal and licentious men; she declared to me that death would be preferable; but her entreaties were vain, and as there was no means of escaping but by running away, she resorted to it as a desperate remedy, for her timid nature never could have braved the perils necessarily encountered by fugitive slaves, had not her mind been thrown into a state of despair.–She was apprehended after a few weeks, by two slave-catchers, in a deserted house, and as it was late in the evening they concluded to spend the night there. What inhuman treatment she received from them has never been revealed. They tied her with cords to their bodies, and supposing they had secured their victim, soon fell into a deep sleep, probably rendered more profound by intoxication and fatigue; but the miserable captive slumbered not; by some means she disengaged herself from her bonds, and again fled through the lone wilderness. After a few days she was discovered in a wretched hut, which seemed to have been long uninhabited; she was speechless; a raging fever consumed her vitals, and when a physician saw her, he said she was dying of a disease brought on by over fatigue; her mother was permitted to visit her, but ere she reached her, the damps of death stood upon her brow, and she had only the sad consolation of looking on the death-struck form and convulsive agonies of her child.
A beloved friend in South Carolina, the wife of a slaveholder, with whom I often mingled my tears, when helpless and hopeless we deplored together the horrors of slavery, related to me some years since the following circumstance.
On the plantation adjoining her husband’s, there was a slave of pre-eminent piety. His master was not a professor of religion, but the superior excellence of this disciple of Christ was not unmarked by him, and I believe he was so sensible of the good influence of his piety that he did not deprive him of the few religious privileges within his reach. A planter was one day dining with the owner of this slave, and in the course of conversation observed, that all profession of religion among slaves was mere hypocrisy. The other asserted a contrary opinion, adding, I have a slave who I believe would rather die than deny his Saviour. This was ridiculed, and the master urged to prove the assertion. He accordingly sent for this man of God, and peremptorily ordered him to deny his belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. The slave pleaded to be excused, constantly affirming that he would rather die than deny the Redeemer, whose blood was shed for him. His master, after vainly trying to induce obedience by threats, had him terribly whipped. The fortitude of the sufferer was not to be shaken; he nobly rejected the offer of exemption from further chastisement at the expense of destroying his soul, and this blessed martyr _died in consequence of this severe infliction_. Oh, how bright a gem will this victim of irresponsible power be, in that crown which sparkles on the Redeemer’s brow; and that many such will cluster there, I have not the shadow of a doubt.
SARAH M. GRIMKE. _Fort Lee, Bergen County, New Jersey, 3rd Month, 26th_, 1830.
TESTIMONY OF THE LATE REV. JOHN GRAHAM of Townsend, Mass., who resided in S. Carolina, from 1831, to the latter part of 1833. Mr. Graham graduated at Amherst College in 1829, spent some time at the Theological Seminary, in New Haven, Ct., and went to South Carolina, for his health in 1830. He resided principally on the island of St. Helena, S.C., and most of the time in the family of James Tripp, Esq., a wealthy slave holding planter. During his residence at St. Helena, he was engaged as an instructer, and was most of the time the stated preacher on the island. Mr. G. was extensively known in Massachusetts; and his fellow students and instructers, at Amherst College, and at Yale Theological Seminary, can bear testimony to his integrity and moral worth. The following are extracts of letters, which he wrote while in South Carolina, to an intimate friend in Concord, Massachusetts, who has kindly furnished them for publication.
EXTRACTS.
_Springfield, St. Helena Isl., S.C., Oct. 22, 1832._
“Last night, about one o’clock, I was awakened by the report of a musket. I was out of bed almost instantly. On opening my window, I found the report proceeded from my host’s chamber. He had let off his pistol, which he usually keeps by him night and day, at a slave, who had come into the yard, and as it appears, had been with one of his house servants. He did not hit him. The ball, taken from a pine tree the next morning, I will show you, should I be spared by Providence ever to return to you. The house servant was called to the master’s chamber, where he received 75 lashes, very severe too; and I could not only hear every lash, but each groan which succeeded very distinctly as I lay in my bed. What was then done with the servant I know not. Nothing was said of this to me in the morning and I presume it will ever be kept from me with care, if I may judge of kindred acts. I shall make no comment.”
In the same letter, Mr. Graham says:–
“You ask me of my hostess”–then after giving an idea of her character says: “To day, she has I verily believe laid, in a very severe manner too, more than 300 _stripes_, upon the house servants,” (17 in number.)
_Darlington, Court Moons. S.C. March, 28th, 1838._
“I walked up to the Court House to day, where I heard one of the most interesting cases I ever heard. I say interesting, on account of its novelty to me, though it had no novelty for the people, as such cases are of frequent occurrence. The case was this: To know whether two ladies, present in court, were _white_ or _black_. The ladies were dressed well, seemed modest, and were retiring and neat in their look, having blue eyes, black hair, and appeared to understand much of the etiquette of southern behaviour.
“A man, more avaricious than humane, as is the case with most of the rich planters, laid a remote claim to those two modest, unassuming, innocent and free young ladies as his property, with the design of putting them into the field, and thus increasing his STOCK! As well as the people of Concord are known to be of a peaceful disposition, and for their love of good order, I verily believe if a similar trial should be brought forward there and conducted as this was, the good people would drive the lawyers out of the house. Such would be their indignation at their language, and at the mean under-handed manner of trying to ruin those young ladies, as to their standing in society in this district, if they could not succeed in dooming them for life to the degraded condition of slavery, and all its intolerable cruelties. Oh slavery! if statues of marble could curse you, they would speak. If bricks could speak, they would all surely thunder out their anathemas against you, accursed thing! How many white sons and daughters have bled and groaned under the lash in this sultry climate,” &c.
Under date of March, 1832, Mr. G. writes, “I have been doing what I hope never to be called to do again, and what I fear I have badly done, though performed to the best of my ability, namely, sewing up a very bad wound made by a wild hog. The slave was hunting wild hogs, when one, being closely pursued, turned upon his pursuer, who turning to run, was caught by the animal, thrown down, and badly wounded in the thigh. The wound is about five inches long and very deep. It was made by the tusk of the animal. The slaves brought him to one of the huts on Mr. Tripp’s plantation and made every exertion to stop the blood by filling the wound with ashes, (their remedy for stopping blood) but finding this to fail they came to me (there being no other white person on the plantation, as it is now holidays) to know if I could stop the blood. I went and found that the poor creature must bleed to death unless it could be stopped soon. I called for a needle and succeeded in sewing it up as well as I could, and in stopping the blood. In a short time his master, who had been sent for came; and oh, you would have shuddered if you had heard the awful oaths that fell from his lips, threatening in the same breath “_to pay him for that_!” I left him as soon as decency would permit, with his hearty thanks that I had saved him $500! Oh, may heaven protect the poor, suffering, fainting slave, and show his master his wanton cruelty–oh slavery! slavery!”
Under date of July, 1832, Mr. G. writes, “I wish you could have been at the breakfast table with me this morning to have seen and heard what I saw and heard, not that I wish your ear and heart and soul pained as mine is, with every day’s observation ‘of wrong and outrage’ with which this place is filled, but that you might have auricular and ocular evidence of the cruelty of slavery, of cruelties that mortal language can never describe–that you might see the tender mercies of a hardened slaveholder, one who bears the name of being _one of the mildest and most merciful masters of which this island can boast_. Oh, my friend, another is screaming under the lash, in the shed-room, but for what I know not. The scene this morning was truly distressing to me. It was this:–_After the blessing was asked_ at the breakfast table, one of the servants, a woman grown, in giving one of the children some molasses, happened to pour out a little more than usual, though not more than the child usually eats. Her master was angry at the petty and indifferent mistake, or slip of the hand. He rose from the table, took both of her hands in one of his, and with the other began to beat her, first on one side of her head and then on the other, and repeating this, till, as he said on sitting down at table, it hurt his hand too much to continue it longer. He then took off his _shoe_, and with the heel began in the same manner as with his hand, till the poor creature could no longer endure it without screeches and raising her elbow as it is natural to ward off the blows. He then called a great overgrown negro _to hold her hands behind her_ while he should wreak his vengeance upon the poor servant. In this position he began again to beat the poor suffering wretch. It now became intolerable to bear; she _fell, screaming to me for help_. After she fell, he beat her until I thought she would have died in his hands. She got up, however, went out and washed off the blood and came in before we rose from table, one of the most pitiable objects I ever saw till I came to the South. Her ears were almost as thick as my hand, her eyes awfully blood-shotten, her lips, nose, cheeks, chin, and whole head swollen so that no one would have known it was Etta–and for all this, she had to turn round as she was going out and _thank her master!_ Now, all this was done while I was sitting at breakfast with the rest of the family. Think you not I wished myself sitting with the peaceful and happy circle around your table? Think of my feelings, but pity the poor negro slave, who not only fans his cruel master when he eats and sleeps, but bears the stripes his caprice may inflict. Think of this, and let heaven hear your prayers.”
In a letter dated St. Helena Island, S.C., Dec. 3, 1832, Mr. G. writes, “If a slave here complains to his master, that his task is too great, his master at once calls him a scoundrel and tells him it is only because he has not enough to do, and orders the driver to increase his task, however unable he may be for the performance of it. I saw TWENTY-SEVEN _whipped at one time_ just because they did not do more, when the poor creatures were so tired that they could scarcely drag one foot after the other.”
TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM POE
Mr. Poe is a native of Richmond, Virginia, and was formerly a slaveholder. He was for several years a merchant in Richmond, and subsequently in Lynchburg, Virginia. A few years since, he emancipated his slaves, and removed to Hamilton County, Ohio, near Cincinnati; where he is a highly respected ruling elder in the Presbyterian church. He says,–
“I am pained exceedingly, and nothing but my duty to God, to the oppressors, and to the poor down-trodden slaves, who go mourning all their days, could move me to say a word. I will state to you a _few_ cases of the abuse of the slaves, but time would fail, if I had language to tell how many and great are the inflictions of slavery, even in its mildest form.
Benjamin James Harris, a wealthy tobacconist of Richmond, Virginia, whipped a slave girl fifteen years old to death. While he was whipping her, his wife heated a smoothing iron, put it on her body in various places, and burned her severely. The verdict of the coroner’s inquest was, “Died of excessive whipping.” He was tried in Richmond, and acquitted. I attended the trial. Some years after, this same Harris whipped another slave to death. The man had not done so much work as was required of him. After a number of protracted and violent scourgings, with short intervals between, the slave died under the lash. Harris was tried, and again acquitted, because none but blacks saw it done. The same man afterwards whipped another slave severely, for not doing work to please him. After repeated and severe floggings in quick succession, for the same cause, the slave, in despair of pleasing him, cut off his own hand. Harris soon after became a bankrupt, went to New Orleans to recruit his finances, failed, removed to Kentucky, became a maniac, and died.
A captain in the United States’ Navy, who married a daughter of the collector of the port of Richmond, and resided there, became offended with his negro boy, took him into the meat house, put him upon a stool, crossed his hands before him, tied a rope to them, threw it over a joist in the building, drew the boy up so that he could just stand on the stool with his toes, and kept him in that position, flogging him severely at intervals, until the boy became so exhausted that he reeled off the stool, and swung by his hands until he died. The master was tried and acquitted.
In Goochland County, Virginia, an overseer tied a slave to a tree, flogged him again and again with great severity, then piled brush around him, set it on fire, and burned him to death. The overseer was tried and imprisoned. The whole transaction may be found on the records of the court.
In traveling, one day, from Petersburg to Richmond, Virginia, I heard cries of distress at a distance, on the road. I rode up, and found two white men, beating a slave. One of them had hold of a rope, which was passed under the bottom of a fence; the other end was fastened around the neck of the slave, who was thrown flat on the ground, on his face, with his back bared. The other was beating him furiously with a large hickory.
A slaveholder in Henrico County, Virginia, had a slave who used frequently to work for my father. One morning he came into the field with his back completely _cut up_, and mangled from his head to his heels. The man was so stiff and sore he could scarcely walk. This same person got offended with another of his slaves, knocked him down, and struck out one of his eyes with a maul. The eyes of several of his slaves were injured by similar violence.
In Richmond, Virginia, a company occupied as a dwelling a large warehouse. They got angry with a negro lad, one of their slaves, took him into the cellar, tied his hands with a rope, bored a hole though the floor, and passed the rope up through it. Some of the family drew up the boy, while others whipped. This they continued until the boy died. The warehouse was owned by a Mr. Whitlock, on the scite of one formerly owned by a Mr. Philpot.
Joseph Chilton, a resident of Campbell County, Virginia, purchased a quart of tanners’ oil, for the purpose, as he said, of putting it on one of his negro’s heads, that he had sometime previous pitched or tarred over, for running away.
In the town of Lynchburg, Virginia, there was a negro man put in prison, charged with having pillaged some packages of goods, which he, as head man of a boat, received at Richmond, to be delivered at Lynchburg. The goods belonged to A.B. Nichols, of Liberty, Bedford County, Virginia. He came to Lynchburg, and desired the jailor to permit him to whip the negro, to make him confess, as there was _no proof against him_. Mr. Williams, (I think that is his name,) a pious Methodist man, a great stickler for law and good order, professedly a great friend to the black man, delivered the negro into the hands of Nichols. Nichols told me that he took the slave, tied his wrists together, then drew his arms down so far below his knees as to permit a staff to pass above the arms under the knees, thereby placing the slave in a situation that he could not move hand or foot. He then commenced his bloody work, and continued, at intervals, until 500 blows were inflicted. I received this statement from Nichols himself, who was, by the way, a _son of the land of “steady habits_,” where there are many like him, if we may judge from their writings, sayings, and doings.”
PRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES.
I. FOOD.
We begin with the _food_ of the slaves, because if they are ill treated in this respect we may be sure that they will be ill treated in other respects, and generally in a greater degree. For a man habitually to stint his dependents in their food, is the extreme of meanness and cruelty, and the greatest evidence he can give of utter indifference to their comfort. The father who stints his children or domestics, or the master his apprentices, or the employer his laborers, or the officer his soldiers, or the captain his crew, when able to furnish them with sufficient food, is every where looked upon as unfeeling and cruel. All mankind agree to call such a character inhuman. If any thing can move a hard heart, it is the appeal of hunger. The Arab robber whose whole life is a prowl for plunder, will freely divide his camel’s milk with the hungry stranger who halts at his tent door, though he may have just waylaid him and stripped him of his money. Even savages take pity on hunger. Who ever went famishing from an Indian’s wigwam? As much as hunger craves, is the Indian’s free gift even to an enemy. The necessity for food is such a universal want, so constant, manifest and imperative, that the heart is more touched with pity by the plea of hunger, and more ready to supply that want than any other. He who can habitually inflict on others the pain of hunger by giving them insufficient food, can habitually inflict on them any other pain. He can kick and cuff and flog and brand them, put them in irons or the stocks, can overwork them, deprive them of sleep, lacerate their backs, make them work without clothing, and sleep without covering.
Other cruelties may be perpetrated in hot blood and the acts regretted as soon as done–the feeling that prompts them is not a permanent state of mind, but a violent impulse stung up by sudden provocation. But he who habitually withholds from his dependents sufficient sustenance, can plead no such palliation. The fact itself shows, that his permanent state of mind toward them is a brutal indifference to their wants and sufferings–A state of mind which will naturally, necessarily, show itself in innumerable privations and inflictions upon them, when it can be done with impunity.
If, therefore, we find upon examination, that the slaveholders do not furnish their slaves with sufficient food, and do thus habitually inflict upon them the pain of hunger, we have a clue furnished to their treatment in other respects, and may fairly infer habitual and severe privations and inflictions; not merely from the fact that men are quick to feel for those who suffer from hunger, and perhaps more ready to relieve that want than any other; but also, because it is more for the interest of the slaveholder to supply that want than any other; consequently, if the slave suffer in this respect, he must as the general rule, suffer _more_ in other respects.
We now proceed to show that the slaves have insufficient food. This will be shown first from the express declarations of slaveholders, and other competent witnesses who are, or have been residents of slave states, that the slaves generally are _under-fed._ And then, by the laws of slave states, and by the testimony of slaveholders and others, the _kind, quantity_, and _quality,_ of their allowance will be given, and the reader left to judge for himself whether the slave _must_ not be a sufferer.
THE SLAVES SUFFER FROM HUNGER–DECLARATIONS OF SLAVE-HOLDERS AND OTHERS
Hon. Alexander Smyth, a slave holder, and for ten years, Member of Congress from Virginia, in his speech on the Missouri question. Jan 28th, 1820.
“By confining the slaves to the Southern states, where crops are raised for exportation, and bread and meat are purchased, you _doom them to scarcity and hunger._ It is proposed to hem in the blacks where they are ILL FED.”
Rev. George Whitefield, in his letter, to the slave holders of Md. Va. N.C. S.C. and Ga. published in Georgia, just one hundred years ago, 1739.
“My blood has frequently run cold within me, to think how many of your slaves _have not sufficient food to eat;_ they are scarcely permitted to _pick up the crumbs,_ that fall from their master’s table.”
Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio, a native of Tennessee, and for same years a preacher in slave states.
“Thousands of the slaves are pressed with the gnawings of cruel hunger during their whole lives.”
Report of the Gradual Emancipation Society, of North Carolina, 1826. Signed Moses Swain, President, and William Swain, Secretary.
Speaking of the condition of slaves, in the eastern part of that state, the report says,–“The master puts the unfortunate wretches upon short allowances, scarcely sufficient for their sustenance, so that a _great part_ of them go _half starved_ much of the time.”
Mr. Asa A. Stone, a Theological Student, who resided near Natchez, Miss., in 1834-5.
“On almost every plantation, the hands suffer more or less from hunger at some seasons of almost every year. There is always a _good deal of suffering_ from hunger. On many plantations, and particularly in Louisiana, the slaves are in a condition of _almost utter famishment,_ during a great portion of the year.”
Thomas Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a Slaveholder.
“From various causes this [the slave’s allowance of food] is _often_ not adequate to the support of a laboring man.”
Mr. Tobias Boudinot, St Albans, Ohio, a member of the Methodist Church. Mr. B. for some years navigated the Mississippi.
“The slaves down the Mississippi, are _half-starved,_ the boats, when they stop at night, are constantly boarded by slaves, begging for something to eat.”
President Edwards, the younger, in a sermon before the Conn. Abolition Society, 1791.
“The slaves are supplied with barely enough to keep them from _starving._”
Rev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist Clergyman of Marlboro’ Mass., who lived five years in Georgia.
“As a general thing on the plantations, the slaves suffer extremely for the want of food.”
Rev. George Bourne, late editor of the Protestant Vindicator, N.Y., who was seven years pastor of a church in Virginia.
“The slaves are deprived of _needful_ sustenance.”
2. KINDS OF FOOD.
Hon. Robert Turnbull, a slaveholder of Charleston, South Carolina.
“The subsistence of the slaves consists, from March until August, of corn ground into grits, or meal, made into what is called _hominy_, or baked into corn bread. The other six months, they are fed upon the sweet potatoe. Meat, when given, is only by way of _indulgence or favor._”
Mr. Eleazar Powell, Chippewa, Beaver Co., Penn., who resided in Mississippi, in 1836-7.
“The food of the slaves was generally corn bread, and _sometimes_ meat or molasses.”
Reuben G. Macy, a member of the Society of Friends, Hudson, N.Y., who resided in South Carolina.
“The slaves had no food allowed them besides _corn,_ excepting at Christmas, when they had beef.”
Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, and recently of Madison Co., Alabama, now member, of the Presbyterian Church, Delhi, Ohio.
“On my uncle’s plantation, the food of the slaves, was corn-pone and a small allowance of meat.”
WILLIAM LADD, Esq., of Minot, Me., president of the American Peace Society, and formerly a slaveholder of Florida, gives the following testimony as to the allowance of food to slaves.
“The usual food of the slaves was _corn_, with a modicum of salt. In some cases the master allowed no salt, but the slaves boiled the sea water for salt in their little pots. For about eight days near Christmas, i.e., from the Saturday evening before, to the Sunday evening after Christmas day, they were allowed some _meat_. They always with one single exception ground their corn in a hand-mill, and cooked their food themselves.”
Extract of a letter from Rev. D.C. EASTMAN, a preacher of the Methodist Episcopal church, in Fayette county, Ohio.
“In March, 1838, Mr. Thomas Larrimer, a deacon of the Presbyterian church in Bloomingbury, Fayette county, Ohio, Mr. G.S. Fullerton, merchant, and member of the same church, and Mr. William A. Ustick, an elder of the same church, spent a night with a Mr. Shepherd, about 30 miles North of Charleston, S.C., on the Monk’s corner road. He owned five families of negroes, who, he said, were fed from the same meal and meat tubs as himself, but that 90 out of a 100 of all the slaves in that county _saw meat but once a year_, which was on Christmas holidays.”
As an illustration of the inhuman experiments sometimes tried upon slaves, in respect to the _kind_ as well as the quality and quantity of their food, we solicit the attention of the reader to the testimony of the late General Wade Hampton, of South Carolina. General Hampton was for some time commander in chief of the army on the Canada frontier during the last war, and at the time of his death, about three years since, was the largest slaveholder in the United States. The General’s testimony is contained in the following extract of a letter, just received from a distinguished clergyman in the west, extensively known both as a preacher and a writer. His name is with the executive committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.
“You refer in your letter to a statement made to you while in this place, respecting the late General Wade Hampton, of South Carolina, and task me to write out for you the circumstances of the case–considering them well calculated to illustrate two points in the history of slavery: 1st, That the habit of slaveholding dreadfully blunts the feelings toward the slave, producing such insensibility that his sufferings and death are regarded with indifference. 2d, That the slave often has insufficient food, both in quantity and quality.
“I received my information from a lady in the west of high respectability and great moral worth,–but think it best to withhold her name, although the statement was not made in confidence.
“My informant stated that she sat at dinner once in company with General Wade Hampton, and several others; that the conversation turned upon the treatment of their servants, &c.; when the General undertook to entertain the company with the relation of an experiment he had made in the feeding of his slaves on cotton seed. He said that he first mingled one-fourth cotton seed with three-fourths corn, on which they seemed to thrive tolerably well; that he then had measured out to them equal quantities of each, which did not seem to produce any important change; afterwards he increased the quantity of cotton seed to three-fourths, mingled with one-fourth corn, and then he declared, with an oath, that ‘they died like rotten sheep!!’ It is but justice to the lady to state that she spoke of his conduct with the utmost indignation; and she mentioned also that he received no countenance from the company present, but that all seemed to look at each other with astonishment. I give it to you just as I received it from one who was present, and whose character for veracity is unquestionable.
“It is proper to add that I had previously formed an acquaintance with Dr. Witherspoon, now of Alabama, if alive; whose former residence was in South Carolina; from whom I received a particular account of the manner of feeding and treating slaves on the plantations of General Wade Hampton, and others in the same part of the State; and certainly no one could listen to the recital without concluding that such masters and overseers as he described must have hearts like the nether millstone. The cotton seed experiment I had heard of before also, as having been made in other parts of the south; consequently, I was prepared to receive as true the above statement, even if I had not been so well acquainted with the high character of my informant.”
2. QUANTITY OF FOOD
The legal allowance of food for slaves in North Carolina, is in the words of the law, “a quart of corn per day.” See Haywood’s Manual, 525. The legal allowance in Louisiana is more, a barrel [flour barrel] of corn, (in the ear,) or its equivalent in other grain, and a pint of salt a month. In the other slave states the amount of food for the slaves is left to the option of the master.
Thos. Clay, Esq., of Georgia, a slave holder, in his address before the Georgia Presbytery, 1833.
“The quantity allowed by custom is _a peck of corn a week_!”
The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore Advertiser, May 30, 1788.
“_A single peck of corn a week, or the like measure of rice_, is the _ordinary_ quantity of provision for a _hard-working_ slave; to which a small quantity of meat is occasionally, though _rarely_, added.”
W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native of Georgia, and Elder in the Presbyterian Church, Wilksbarre, Penn.
“The weekly allowance to grown slaves on this plantation, where I was best acquainted, was _one peck of corn_.”
Wm. Ladd, of Minot, Maine, formerly a slaveholder in Florida.
“The usual allowance of food was _one quart of corn a day_, to a full task hand, with a modicum of salt; kind masters allowed _a peck of corn a week_; some masters allowed no salt.”
Mr. Jarvis Brewster, in his “Exposition of the treatment of slaves in the Southern States,” published in N. Jersey, 1815.
“The allowance of provisions for the slaves, is _one peck of corn, in the grain, per week_.”
Rev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist Clergyman of Marlboro, Mass., who lived five years in Georgia.
“In Georgia the planters give each slave only _one peck of their gourd seed corn per week_, with a small quantity of salt.”
Mr. F.C. Macy, Nantucket, Mass., who resided in Georgia in 1820.
“The food of the slaves was three pecks of potatos a week during the potato season, and _one peck of corn_, during the remainder of the year.”
Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, a member of the Baptist Church in Waterford, Conn., who resided in North Carolina, eleven winters.
“The subsistence of the slaves, consists of _seven quarts of meal_ or _eight quarts of small rice for one week!_”
William Savery, late of Philadelphia, an eminent Minister of the Society of Friends, who travelled extensively in the slave states, on a Religious Visitation, speaking of the subsistence of the slaves, says, in his published Journal,
“_A peck of corn_ is their (the slaves,) miserable subsistence _for a week_.”
The late John Parrish, of Philadelphia, another highly respected Minister of the Society of Friends, who traversed the South, on a similar mission, in 1804 and 5, says in his “Remarks on the slavery of Blacks;”
“They allow them but _one peck of meal_, for a whole week, in some of the Southern states.”
Richard Macy, Hudson, N.Y. a Member of the Society of Friends, who has resided in Georgia.
“Their usual allowance of food was one peck of corn per week, which was dealt out to them every first day of the week. They had nothing allowed them besides the corn, except one quarter of beef at Christmas.”
Rev. C.S. Renshaw, of Quincy, Ill., (the testimony of a Virginian).
“The slaves are generally allowanced: a pint of corn meal and a salt herring is the allowance, or in lieu of the herring a “dab” of fat meat of about the same value. I have known the sour milk, and clauber to be served out to the hands, when there was an abundance of milk on the plantation. This is a luxury not often afforded.”
Testimony of Mr. George W. Westgate, member of the Congregational Church, of Quincy, Illinois. Mr. W. has been engaged in the low country trade for twelve years, more than half of each year, principally on the Mississippi, and its tributary streams in the south-western slave states.
“_Feeding is not sufficient_,–let facts speak. On the coast, i.e. Natchez and the Gulf of Mexico, the allowance was one barrel of ears of corn, and a pint of salt per month. They may cook this in what manner they please, but it must be done after dark; they have no day light to prepare it by. Some few planters, but only a few, let them prepare their corn on Saturday afternoon. Planters, overseers, and negroes, have told me, that in _pinching times_, i.e. when corn is high, they did not get near that quantity. In Miss., I know some planters who allowed their hands three and a half pounds of meat per week, when it was cheap. Many prepare their corn on the Sabbath, when they are not worked on that day, which however is frequently the case on sugar plantations. There are very many masters on “the coast” who will not suffer their slaves to come to the boats, because they steal molasses to barter for meat; indeed they generally trade more or less with stolen property. But it is impossible to find out what and when, as their articles of barter are of such trifling importance. They would often come on board our boats to beg a bone, and would tell how badly they were fed, that they were almost starved; many a time I have set up all night, to prevent them from stealing something to eat.”
3. QUALITY OF FOOD.
Having ascertained the kind and quantity of food allowed to the slaves, it is important to know something of its _quality_, that we may judge of the amount of sustenance which it contains. For, if their provisions are of an inferior quality, or in a damaged state, their power to sustain labor must be greatly diminished.
Thomas Clay, Esq. of Georgia, from an address to the Georgia Presbytery, 1834, speaking of the quality of the corn given to the slaves, says,
“There is _often a defect here_.”
Rev. Horace Moulton, a Methodist clergyman at Marlboro, Mass. and five years a resident of Georgia.
“The food, or ‘feed’ of slaves is generally of the _poorest_ kind.”
The “Western Medical Reformer,” in an article on the diseases peculiar to negroes, by a Kentucky physician, says of the diet of the slaves;
“They live on a coarse, _crude, unwholesome diet_.”
Professor A.G. Smith, of the New York Medical College; formerly a physician in Louisville, Kentucky.
I have myself known numerous instances of large families of _badly fed_ negroes swept off by a prevailing epidemic; and it is well known to many intelligent planters in the south, that the best method of preventing that horrible malady, _Chachexia Africana_, is to feed the negroes with _nutritious_ food.
4. NUMBER AND TIME OF MEALS EACH DAY.
In determining whether or not the slaves suffer for want of food, the number of hours intervening, and the labor performed between their meals, and the number of meals each day, should be taken into consideration.
Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, and member of the Presbyterian church, who lived in Florida, in 1834, and 1835.
“The slaves go to the field in the morning; they carry with them corn meal wet with water, and at _noon_ build a fire on the ground and bake it in the ashes. After the labors of the day are over, they take their _second_ meal of ash-cake.”
President Edwards, the younger.
“The slaves eat _twice_ during the day.”
Mr. Eleazar Powell, Chippewa, Beaver county, Penn., who resided in Mississippi in 1836 and 1837.
“The slaves received _two_ meals during the day. Those who have their food cooked for them get their breakfast about eleven o’clock, and their other meal _after night_.”
Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Conn., who spent eleven winters in North Carolina.
“The _breakfast_ of the slaves was generally about _ten or eleven_ o’clock.”
Rev. Phineas Smith, Centreville, N.Y., who has lived at the south some years.
“The slaves have usually _two_ meals a day, viz: at eleven o’clock and at night.”
Rev. C.S. Renshaw, Quincy, Illinois–the testimony of a Virginian.
“The slaves have _two_ meals a day. They breakfast at from ten to eleven, A.M., and eat their supper at from six to nine or ten at night, as the season and crops may be.”
The preceding testimony establishes the following points.
1st. That the slaves are allowed, in general, _no meat_. This appears from the fact, that in the _only_ slave states which regulate the slaves’ rations _by law_, (North Carolina and Louisiana,) the _legal ration_ contains _no meat_. Besides, the late Hon. R.J. Turnbull, one of the largest planters in South Carolina, says expressly, “meat, when given, is only by the way of indulgence or favor.” It is shown also by the direct testimony recorded above, of slaveholders and others, in all parts of the slaveholding south and west, that the general allowance on plantations is corn or meal and salt merely. To this there are doubtless many exceptions, but they are _only_ exceptions; the number of slaveholders who furnish meat for their _field-hands_, is small, in comparison with the number of those who do not. The house slaves, that is, the cooks, chambermaids, waiters, &c., generally get some meat every day; the remainder bits and bones of their masters’ tables. But that the great body of the slaves, those that compose the field gangs, whose labor and exposure, and consequent exhaustion, are vastly greater than those of house slaves, toiling as they do from day light till dark, in the fogs of the early morning, under the scorchings of mid-day, and amid the damps of evening, are _in general_ provided with _no meat_, is abundantly established by the preceding testimony.
Now we do not say that meat _is necessary_ to sustain men under hard and long continued labor, nor that it is _not_. This is not a treatise on dietetics; but it is a notorious fact, that the medical faculty in this country, with very few exceptions, do most strenuously insist that it is necessary; and that working men in all parts of the country do _believe_ that meat is indispensable to sustain them, even those who work within doors, and only ten hours a day, every one knows. Further, it is notorious, that the slaveholders themselves _believe_ the daily use of meat to be absolutely necessary to the comfort, not merely of those who labor, but of those who are idle, as is proved by the fact of meat being a part of the daily ration of food provided for convicts in the prisons, in every one of the slave states, except in those rare cases where meat is expressly prohibited, and the convict is, by _way of extra punishment_ confined to bread and water; he is occasionally, and for a little time only, confined to bread and water; that is, to the _ordinary diet_ of slaves, with this difference in favor of the convict, his bread is made for him, whereas the slave is forced to pound or grind his own corn and make his own bread, when exhausted with toil.
The preceding testimony shows also, that _vegetables_ form generally no part of the slaves’ allowance. The _sole_ food of the majority is _corn_: at every meal–from day to day–from week to week–from month to month, _corn_. In South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, the sweet potato is, to a considerable extent, substituted for corn during a part of the year.
2d. The preceding testimony proves conclusively, that the _quantity of food_ generally allowed to a full-grown field-hand, is a peck of corn a week, or a fraction over a quart and a gill of corn a day. The legal ration of North Carolina is _less_–in Louisiana it is _more_. Of the slaveholders and other witnesses, who give the fore-going testimony, the reader will perceive that no one testifies to a larger allowance of corn than a peck for a week; though a number testify, that within the circle of their knowledge, _seven_ quarts was the usual allowance. Frequently a small quantity of meat is added; but this, as has already been shown, is not the general rule for _field-hands_. We may add, also, that in the season of “pumpkins,” “cimblins,” “cabbages,” “greens,” &c., the slaves on small plantations are, to some extent, furnished with those articles.
Now, without entering upon the vexed question of how much food is necessary to sustain the human system, under severe toil and exposure, and without giving the opinions of physiologists as to the insufficiency or sufficiency of the slaves’ allowance, we affirm that all civilized nations have, in all ages, and in the most emphatic manner, declared, that _eight quarts of corn a week_, (the usual allowance of our slaves,) is utterly insufficient to sustain the human body, under such toil and exposure as that to which the slaves are subjected.
To show this fully, it will be necessary to make some estimates, and present some statistics. And first, the northern reader must bear in mind, that the corn furnished to the slaves at the south, is almost invariably the _white gourd seed_ corn, and that a quart of this kind of corn weighs five or six ounces _less_ than a quart of “flint corn,” the kind generally raised in the northern and eastern states; consequently a peck of the corn generally given to the slaves, would be only equivalent to a fraction more than six quarts and a pint of the corn commonly raised in the New England States, New York, New Jersey, &c. Now, what would be said of the northern capitalist, who should allow his laborers but _six quarts and five gills of corn for a week’s provisions?_
Further, it appears in evidence, that the corn given to the slaves is often _defective_. This, the reader will recollect, is the voluntary testimony of Thomas Clay, Esq., the Georgia planter, whose testimony is given above. When this is the case, the amount of actual nutriment contained in a peck of the “gourd seed,” may not be more than in five, or four, or even three quarts of “flint corn.”
As a quart of southern corn weighs at least five ounces less than a quart of northern corn, it requires little arithmetic to perceive, that the daily allowance of the slave fed upon that kind of corn, would contain about one third of a pound less nutriment than though his daily ration were the same quantity of northern corn, which would amount, in a year, to more than a hundred and twenty pounds of human sustenance! which would furnish the slave with his full allowance of a peck of corn a week for two months! It is unnecessary to add, that this difference in the weight of the two kinds of corn, is an item too important to be overlooked. As one quart of the southern corn weighs one pound and eleven-sixteenths of a pound, it follows that it would be about one pound and six-eighths of a pound. We now solicit the attention of the reader to the following unanimous testimony, of the civilized world, to the utter insufficiency of this amount of food to sustain human beings under labor. This testimony is to be found in the laws of all civilized nations, which regulate the rations of soldiers and sailors, disbursements made by governments for the support of citizens in times of public calamity, the allowance to convicts in prisons, &c. We will begin with the United States.
The daily ration for each United States soldier, established by act of Congress, May 30, 1796. was the following: one pound of beef, one pound of bread, half a gill of spirits; and at the rate of one quart of salt, two quarts of vinegar, two pounds of soap, and one pound of candles to every hundred rations. To those soldiers “who were on the frontiers,” (where the labor and exposure were greater,) the ration was one pound two ounces of beef and one pound two ounces of bread. Laws U.S. vol. 3d, sec. 10, p. 431.
After an experiment of two years, the preceding ration being found _insufficient_, it was increased, by act of Congress, July 16, 1798, and was as follows: beef one pound and a quarter, bread one pound two ounces; salt two quarts, vinegar four quarts, soap four pounds, and candles one and a half pounds to the hundred rations. The preceding allowance was afterwards still further increased.
The _present daily ration_ for the United States’ soldiers, is, as we learn from an advertisement of Captain Fulton, of the United States’ army, in a late number of the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, as follows: one and a quarter pounds of beef, one and three-sixteenths pounds of bread; and at the rate of _eight quarts of beans, eight pounds of sugar_, four pounds of coffee, two quarts of salt, four pounds of candles, and four pounds of soap, to every hundred rations.
We have before us the daily rations provided for the emigrating Ottawa Indians, two years since, and for the emigrating Cherokees last fall. They were the same–one pound of fresh beef, one pound of flour, &c.
The daily ration for the United States’ navy, is fourteen ounces of bread, half a pound of beef, six ounces of pork, three ounces of rice, three ounces of peas, one ounce of cheese, one ounce of sugar, half an ounce of tea, one-third of a gill molasses.
The daily ration in the British army is one and a quarter pounds of beef, one pound of bread, &c.
The daily ration in the French army is one pound of beef, one and a half pounds of bread, one pint of wine, &c.
The common daily ration for foot soldiers on the continent, is one pound of meat, and one and a half pounds of bread.
The _sea ration_ among the Portuguese, has become the usual ration in the navies of European powers generally. It is as follows: “one and a half pounds of biscuit, one pound of salt meat, one pint of wine, with some dried fish and onions.”
PRISON RATIONS.–Before giving the usual daily rations of food allowed to convicts, in the principal prisons in the United States, we will quote the testimony of the “American Prison Discipline Society,” which is as follows:
“The common allowance of food in the penitentiaries, is equivalent to ONE POUND OF MEAT, ONE POUND OF BREAD, AND ONE POUND OF VEGETABLES PER DAY. It varies a little from this in some of them, but it is generally equivalent to it.” First Report of American Prison Discipline Society, page 13.
The daily ration of food to each convict, in the principal prisons in this country, is as follows:
In the New Hampshire State Prison, one and a quarter pounds of meal, and fourteen ounces of beef, for _breakfast and dinner;_ and for supper, a soup or porridge of potatos and beans, or peas, the _quantity not limited_.
In the Vermont prison, the convicts are allowed to eat _as much as they wish_.
In the Massachusetts’ penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread, fourteen ounces of meat, half a pint of potatos, and one gill of molasses, or one pint of milk.
In the Connecticut State Prison, one pound of beef, one pound of bread, two and a half pounds of potatos, half a gill of molasses, with salt, pepper, and vinegar.
In the New York State Prison, at Auburn, one pound of beef, twenty-two ounces of flour and meal, half a gill of molasses; with two quarts of rye, four quarts of salt, two quarts of vinegar, one and a half ounces of pepper, and two and a half bushels of potatos to every hundred rations.
In the New York State Prison at Sing Sing, one pound of beef, eighteen ounces of flour and meal, besides potatos, rye coffee, and molasses.
In the New York City Prison, one pound of beef, one pound of flour; and three pecks of potatos to every hundred rations, with other small articles.
In the New Jersey State Prison, one pound of bread, half a pound of beef, with potatos and cabbage, (quantity not specified,) one gill of molasses, and a bowl of mush for supper.
In the late Walnut Street Prison, Philadelphia, one and a half pounds of bread and meal, half a pound of beef, one pint of potatos, one gill of molasses, and half a gill of rye, for coffee.
In the Baltimore prison, we believe the ration is the same with the preceding.
In the Pennsylvania Eastern Penitentiary, one pound of bread and one pint of coffee for breakfast, one pint of meat soup, with potatos without limit, for dinner, and mush and molasses for supper.
In the Penitentiary for the District of Columbia, Washington city, one pound of beef, twelve ounces of Indian meal, ten ounces of wheat flour, half a gill of molasses; with two quarts of rye, four quarts of salt, four quarts of vinegar, and two and a half bushels of potatos to every hundred rations.
RATIONS IN ENGLISH PRISONS.–The daily ration of food in the Bedfordshire Penitentiary, is _two pounds of bread;_ and if at hard labor, _a quart of soup for dinner._
In the Cambridge County House of Correction, three pounds of bread, and one pint of beer.
In the Millbank General Penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread, one pound of potatos, six ounces of beef, with half a pint of broth therefrom.
In the Gloucestershire Penitentiary, one and a half pounds of bread, three-fourths of a pint of peas, made into soup, with beef, quantity not stated. Also gruel, made of vegetables, quantity not stated, and one and a half ounces of oatmeal mixed with it.
In the Leicestershire House of Correction, two pounds of bread, and three pints of gruel; and when at hard labor, one pint of milk in addition, and twice a week a pint of meat soup at dinner, instead of gruel.
In the Buxton House of Correction, one and a half pounds of bread, one and a half pints of gruel, one and a half pints of soup, four-fifths of a pound of potatos, and two-sevenths of an ounce of beef.
Notwithstanding the preceding daily ration in the Buxton Prison is about double the usual daily allowance of our slaves, yet the visiting physicians decided, that for those prisoners who were required to work the tread-mill, it was _entirely sufficient_. This question was considered at length, and publicly discussed at the sessions of the Surry magistrates, with the benefit of medical advice; which resulted in “large additions” to the rations of those who worked on the tread-mill. See London Morning Chronicle, Jan. 13, 1830.
To the preceding we add the _ration of the Roman slaves_. The monthly allowance of food to slaves in Rome was called “Dimensum.” The “Dimensum” was an allowance of wheat or of other grain, which consisted of five _modii_ a month to each slave. Ainsworth, in his Latin Dictionary estimates the _modius_, when used for the measurement of grain, at _a peck and a half_ our measure, which would make the Roman slave’s allowance _two quarts of grain a day_, just double the allowance provided for the slave by _law_ in North Carolina, and _six_ quarts more per week than the ordinary allowance of slaves in the slave states generally, as already established by the testimony of slaveholders themselves. But it must by no means be overlooked that this “dimensum,” or _monthly_ allowance, was far from being the sole allowance of food to Roman slaves. In _addition_ to this, they had a stated _daily_ allowance (_diarium_) besides a monthly allowance of _money_, amounting to about a cent a day.
Now without further trenching on the reader’s time, we add, compare the preceding daily allowances of food to soldiers and sailors in this and other countries; to convicts in this and other countries; to bodies of emigrants rationed at public expense; and finally, with the fixed allowance given to Roman slaves, and we find the states of this Union, the _slave_ states as well as the free, the United States’ government, the different European governments, the old Roman empire, in fine, we may add, the _world_, ancient and modern, uniting in the testimony that to furnish men at hard labor from daylight till dark with but 1-1/2 lbs. of _corn_ per day, their sole sustenance, is to MURDER THEM BY PIECE-MEAL. The reader will perceive by examining the preceding statistics that the _average daily_ ration throughout this country and Europe exceeds the usual slave’s allowance _at least a pound a day_; also that one-third of this ration for soldiers and convicts in the United States, and for solders and sailors in Europe is _meat_, generally beef; whereas the allowance of the mass of our slaves is corn, only. Further, the convicts in our prisons are sheltered from the heat of the sun, and from the damps of the early morning and evening, from cold, rain, &c.; whereas, the great body of the slaves are exposed to all of these, in their season, from daylight till dark; besides this, they labor more hours in the day than convicts, as will be shown under another head, and are obliged to prepare and cook their own food after they have finished the labor of the day, while the convicts have theirs prepared for them. These, with other circumstances, necessarily make larger and longer draughts upon the strength of the slave, produce consequently greater exhaustion, and demand a larger amount of food to restore and sustain the laborer than is required by the convict in his briefer, less exposed, and less exhausting toils.
That the slaveholders themselves regard the usual allowance of food to slaves as insufficient, both in kind and quantity, for hard-working men, is shown by the fact, that in all the slave states, we believe without exception, _white_ convicts at hard labor, have a much _larger_ allowance of food than the usual one of slaves; and generally more than _one third_ of this daily allowance is meat. This conviction of slaveholders shows itself in various forms. When persons wish to hire slaves to labor on public works, in addition to the inducement of high wages held out to masters to hire out their slaves, the contractors pledge themselves that a certain amount of food shall be given the slaves, taking care to specify a _larger_ amount than the usual allowance, and a part of it _meat_.
The following advertisement is an illustration. We copy it from the “Daily Georgian,” Savannah, Dec. 14, 1838.
NEGROES WANTED.
The Contractors upon the Brunswick and Alatamaha Canal are desirous to hire a number of prime Negro Men, from the 1st October next, for fifteen months, until the 1st January, 1810. They will pay at the rate of eighteen dollars per month for each prime hand.
These negroes will be employed in the excavation of the Canal. They will be provided with _three and a half pounds of pork or bacon, and ten quarts of gourd seed corn per week_, lodged in comfortable shantees and attended constantly a skilful physician. J.H. COUPER, P.M. NIGHTINGALE.
But we have direct testimony to this point. The late Hon. John Taylor, of Caroline Co. Virginia, for a long time Senator in Congress, and for many years president of the Agricultural Society of the State, says in his “Agricultural Essays,” No. 30, page 97, “BREAD ALONE OUGHT NEVER TO BE CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT DIET FOR SLAVES EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT.” He urges upon the planters of Virginia to give their slaves, in addition to bread, “salt meat and vegetables,” and adds, “we shall be ASTONISHED to discover upon trial, that this great comfort to them is a profit to the master.”
The Managers of the American Prison Discipline Society, in their third Report, page 58, say, “In the Penitentiaries generally, in the United States, the animal food is equal to one pound of meat per day for each convict.”
Most of the actual suffering from hunger on the part of the slaves, is in the sugar and cotton-growing region, where the crops are exported and the corn generally purchased from the upper country. Where this is the case there cannot but be suffering. The contingencies of bad crops, difficult transportation, high prices, &c. &c., naturally occasion short and often precarious allowances. The following extract from a New Orleans paper of April 26, 1837, affords an illustration. The writer in describing the effects of the money pressure in Mississippi, says:
“They, (the planters,) are now left without provisions and the means of living and using their industry, for the present year. In this dilemma, planters whose crops have been from 100 to 700 bales, find themselves forced to sacrifice many of their slaves in order to get the common necessaries of life for the support of themselves and the rest of their negroes. In many places, heavy planters compel their slaves to fish for the means of subsistence, rather than sell them at such ruinous rates. There are at this moment THOUSANDS OF SLAVES in Mississippi, that KNOW NOT WHERE THE NEXT MORSEL IS TO COME FROM. The master must be ruined to save the wretches from being STARVED.”
II. LABOR
THE SLAVES ARE OVERWORKED.
This is abundantly proved by the number of hours that the slaves are obliged to be in the field. But before furnishing testimony as to their hours of labor and rest, we will present the express declarations of slaveholders and others, that the slaves are severely driven in the field.
The Senate and House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina.
“Many owners of slaves, and others who have the management of slaves, _do confine them so closely at hard labor that they have not sufficient time for natural rest_.–See 2 Brevard’s Digest of the Laws of South Carolina, 243.”
History of Carolina.–Vol. I, page 190.
“So _laborious_ is the task of raising, beating, and cleaning rice, that had it been possible to obtain European servants in sufficient numbers, _thousands and tens of thousands_ MUST HAVE PERISHED.”
Hon. Alexander Smyth, a slaveholder, and member of Congress from Virginia, in his speech on the “Missouri question,” Jan. 28, 1820.
“Is it not obvious that the way to render their situation _more comfortable_, is to allow them to be taken where there is not the same motive to force the slave to INCESSANT TOIL that there is in the country where cotton, sugar, and tobacco are raised for exportation. It is proposed to hem in the blacks _where they are_ HARD WORKED, that they may be rendered unproductive and the race be prevented from increasing. * * * The proposed measure would be EXTREME CRUELTY to the blacks. * * * You would * * * doom them to HARD LABOR.”
“Travels in Louisiana,” translated from the French by John Davies, Esq.–Page 81.
“At the rolling of sugars, an interval of from two to three months, they _work both night and day_. Abridged of their sleep, they _scarce retire to rest during the whole period_.”
The Western Review, No. 2,–article “Agriculture of Louisiana.”
“The work is admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves,) requiring when the process is commenced to be _pushed night and day_.”
W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., a native of Georgia, elder of the Presbyterian church, Wilkesbarre, Penn.
“_Overworked_ I know they (the slaves) are.”
Mr. Asa A. Stone, a theological student, near Natchez, Miss., in 1834 and 1835.
“Every body here knows _overdriving_ to be one of the most common occurrences, the planters do not deny it, except, perhaps, to northerners.”
Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer of Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida in 1834 and 1835.
“During the cotton-picking season they usually labor in the field during the whole of the daylight, and then spend a good part of the night in ginning and baling. The labor required is very frequently excessive, and speedily impairs the constitution.”
Hon. R.J. Turnbull of South Carolina, a slaveholder, speaking of the harvesting of cotton, says:
“_All the pregnant women_ even, on the plantation, and weak and _sickly_ negroes incapable of other labour, are then _in requisition_.”
HOURS OF LABOR AND REST.
Asa A. Stone, theological student, a classical teacher near Natchez, Miss., 1835.
“It is a general rule on all regular plantations, that the slaves be in the field as _soon as it is light enough for them to see to work_, and remain there until it is _so dark that they cannot see_.”
Mr. Cornelius Johnson, of Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi a part of 1837 and 1838.
“It is the common rule for the slaves to be kept at work _fifteen hours in the day_, and in the time of picking cotton a certain number of pounds is required of each. If this amount is not brought in at night, the slave is whipped, and the number of pounds lacking is added to the next day’s job; this course is often repeated from day to day.”
W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., Wilkesbarre, Penn, a native of Georgia. “It was customary for the overseers to call out the gangs _long before day_, say three o’clock, in the winter, while dressing out the crops; such work as could be done by fire light (pitch pine was abundant,) was provided.”
Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia and son of a slaveholder–he has recently removed to Delhi, Hamilton County, Ohio.
“_From dawn till dark_, the slaves are required to bend to their work.”
Mr. Nehemiah Caulkins, Waterford, Conn., a resident in North Carolina eleven winters.
“The slaves are obliged to work _from daylight till dark_, as long as they can see.”
Mr. Eleazar Powel, Chippewa, Beaver county, Penn., who lived in Mississippi in 1836 and 1837.
“The slaves had to cook and eat their breakfast and be in the field by _daylight, and continue there till dark_.”
Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, who resided in Florida in 1834 and 1835.
“The slaves commence labor _by daylight_ in the morning, and do not leave the field _till dark_ in the evening.”
“Travels in Louisiana,” page 87.
“Both in summer and winter the slave must _be in the field by the first dawning of day_.”
Mr. Henry E. Knapp, member of a Christian church in Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi in 1837 and 1838.
“The slaves were made to work, from _as soon as they could see_ in the morning, till as late as they could see at night. Sometimes they were made to work till nine o’clock at night, in such work as they could do, as burning cotton stalks, &c.”
A New Orleans paper, dated March 23, 1826, says: “To judge from the activity reigning in the cotton presses of the suburbs of St. Mary, and the _late hours_ during which their slaves work, the cotton trade was never more brisk.”
Mr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, a member of the Congregational Church at Quincy, Illinois, who lived in the south western slaves states a number of years says, “the slaves are driven to the field in the morning _about four o’clock_, the general calculation is to get them at work by daylight; the time for breakfast is between nine and ten o’clock, this meal is sometimes eaten ‘_bite and work_,’ others allow fifteen minutes, and this is the only rest the slave has while in the field. I have never known a case of stopping for an hour, in Louisiana; in Mississippi the rule is milder, though entirely subject to the will of the master. On cotton plantations, in cotton picking time, that is from October to Christmas, each hand has a certain quantity to pick, and is flogged if his task is not accomplished; their tasks are such as to keep them all the while busy.”
The preceding testimony under this head has sole reference to the actual labor of the slaves _in the field_. In order to determine how many hours are left for sleep, we must take into the account, the time spent in going to and from the field, which is often at a distance of one, two and sometimes three miles; also the time necessary for pounding, or grinding their corn, and preparing, overnight, their food for the next day; also the preparation of tools, getting fuel and preparing it, making fires and cooking their suppers, if they have any, the occasional mending and washing of their clothes, &c. Besides this, as everyone knows who has lived on a southern plantation, many little errands and _chores_ are to be done for their masters and mistresses, old and young, which have accumulated during the day and been kept in reserve till the slaves return from the field at night. To this we may add that the slaves are _social_ beings, and that during the day, silence is generally enforced by the whip of the overseer or driver.[3] When they return at night, their pent up social feelings will seek vent, it is a law of nature, and though the body may be greatly worn with toil, this law cannot be wholly stifled. Sharers of the same woes, they are drawn together by strong affinities, and seek the society and sympathy of their fellows; even “_tired_ nature” will joyfully forego for a time needful rest, to minister to a want of its being equally permanent and imperative as the want of sleep, and as much more profound, as the yearnings of the higher nature surpass the instincts of its animal appendage.
[Footnote 3: We do not mean that they are not suffered to _speak_, but, that, as conversation would be a hindrance to labour, they are generally permitted to indulge in it but little.]
All these things make drafts upon _time_. To show how much of the slave’s time, which is absolutely indispensable for rest and sleep, is necessarily spent in various labors after his return from the field at night, we subjoin a few testimonies.
Mr. CORNELIUS JOHNSON, Farmington, Ohio, who lived in Mississippi in the years 1837 and 38, says:
“On all the plantations where I was acquainted, the slaves were kept in the field till dark; after which, those who had to grind their own corn, had that to attend to, get their supper, attend to other family affairs of their own and of their master, such as bringing water, washing, clothes, &c. &c., and be in the field as soon as it was sufficiently light to commence work in the morning.”
Mr. GEORGE W. WESTGATE, of Quincy, Illinois, who has spent several years in the south western slave states, says:
“Their time, after full dark until four o’clock in the morning is their own; this fact alone would seem to say they have sufficient rest, but there are other things to be considered; much of their making, mending and washing of clothes, preparing and cooking food, hauling and chopping wood, fixing and preparing tools, and a variety of little nameless jobs must be done between those hours.”
PHILEMON BLISS, Esq. of Elyria, Ohio, who resided in Florida in 1834 and 5, gives the following testimony:
“After having finished their field labors, they are occupied till nine or ten o’clock in doing _chores_, such as grinding corn, (as all the corn in the vicinity is ground by hand,) chopping wood, taking care of horses, mules, &c., and a thousand things necessary to be done on a large plantation. If any extra job is to be done, it must not hinder the ‘niggers’ from their work, but must be done in the night.”
W.C. GILDERSLEEVE, Esq., a native of Georgia, an elder of the Presbyterian Church at Wilkes-barre, Pa. says:
“The corn is ground in a handmill by the slave _after his task is done_–generally there is but one mill on the plantation, and as but one can grind at a time, the mill is going sometimes _very late at night_.”
We now present another class of facts and testimony, showing that the slaves engaged in raising the large staples, are _overworked_.
In September, 1831, the writer of this had an interview with JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., who then resided in Kentucky, having removed with his family from Alabama the year before. A few hours before that interview, and on the morning of the same day, Mr. B. had spent a couple of hours with Hon. Henry Clay, at his residence, near Lexington. Mr. Birney remarked, that Mr. Clay had just told him, he had lately been led to mistrust certain estimates as to the increase of the slave population in the far south west–estimates which he had presented, I think, in a speech before the Colonization Society. He now believed, that the births among the slaves in that quarter were _not equal to the deaths_–and that, of course, the slave population, independent of immigration from the slave-selling states, was _not sustaining itself_.
Among other facts stated by Mr. Clay, was the following, which we copy _verbatim_ from the original memorandum, made at the time by Mr. Birney, with which he has kindly furnished us.
“Sept. 16, 1834.–Hon. H. Clay, in a conversation at his own house, on the subject of slavery, informed me, that Hon. Outerbridge Horsey, formerly a senator in Congress from the state of Delaware, and the owner of a sugar plantation in Louisiana, declared to him, that his overseer worked his hands so closely, that one of the women brought forth a child whilst engaged in the labors of the field.
“Also, that a few years since, he was at a brick yard in the environs of New Orleans, in which one hundred hands were employed; among them were from _twenty to thirty young women_, in the prime of life. He was told by the proprietor, that there had _not been a child born among them for the last two or three years, although they all had husbands_.”
The preceding testimony of Mr. Clay, is strongly corroborated by advertisements of slaves, by Courts of Probate, and by executors administering upon the estates of deceased persons. Some of those advertisements for the sale of slaves, contain the names, ages, accustomed employment, &c., of all the slaves upon the plantation of the deceased. These catalogues show large numbers of young men and women, almost all of them between twenty and thirty-eight years old; and yet the number of young children is _astonishingly small_. We have laid aside many lists of this kind, in looking over the newspapers of the slaveholding states; but the two following are all we can lay our hands on at present. One is in the “Planter’s Intelligencer,” Alexandria, La., March 22, 1837, containing one hundred and thirty slaves; and the other in the New Orleans Bee, a few days later, April 8, 1837, containing fifty-one slaves. The former is a “Probate sale” of the slaves belonging to the estate of Mr. Charles S. Lee, deceased, and is advertised by G.W. Keeton, Judge of the Parish of Concordia, La. The sex, name, and age of each slave are contained in the advertisement which fills two columns. The following are some of the particulars.
The whole number of slaves is _one hundred and thirty_. Of these, _only three are over forty years old_. There are _thirty-five females_ between the ages of _sixteen and thirty-three_, and yet there are only THIRTEEN children under the age of _thirteen years!_
It is impossible satisfactorily to account for such a fact, on any other supposition, than that these thirty-five females were so overworked, or underfed, or both, as to prevent child-bearing.
The other advertisement is that of a “Probate sale,” ordered by the Court of the Parish of Jefferson–including the slaves of Mr. William Gormley. The whole number of slaves is fifty-one; the sex, age, and accustomed labors of each are given. The oldest of these slaves is but _thirty-nine years old_: of the females, _thirteen_ are between the ages of sixteen and thirty-two, and the oldest female is but _thirty-eight_–and yet there are but _two children under eight years old!_
Another proof that the slaves in the south-western states are over-worked, is the fact, that so few of them live to old age. A large majority of them are _old_ at middle age, and few live beyond fifty-five. In one of the preceding advertisements, out of one hundred and thirty slaves, only _three_ are over forty years old! In the other, out of fifty-one slaves, only _two_ are over _thirty-five_; the oldest is but thirty-nine, and the way in which he is designated in the advertisement, is an additional proof, that what to others is “middle age,” is to the slaves in the south-west “old age:” he is advertised as “_old_ Jeffrey.”
But the proof that the slave population of the south-west is so over-worked that it cannot _supply its own waste_, does not rest upon mere inferential evidence. The Agricultural Society of Baton Rouge, La., in its report, published in 1829, furnishes a labored estimate of the amount of expenditure necessarily incurred in conducting “a well-regulated sugar estate.” In this estimate, the annual net loss of slaves, over and above the supply by propagation, is set down at TWO AND A HALF PER CENT! The late Hon. Josiah S. Johnson, a member of Congress from Louisiana, addressed a letter to the Secretary of the United States’ Treasury, in 1830, containing a similar estimate, apparently made with great care, and going into minute details. Many items in this estimate differ from the preceding; but the estimate of the annual _decrease_ of the slaves on a plantation was the same–TWO AND A HALF PER CENT!
The following testimony of Rev. Dr. Channing, of Boston, who resided some time in Virginia, shows that the over-working of slaves, to such an extent as to abridge life, and cause a decrease of population, is not confined to the far south and south-west.
“I heard of an estate managed by an individual who was considered as singularly successful, and who was able to govern the slaves without the use of the whip. I was anxious to see him, and trusted that some discovery had been made favorable to humanity. I asked him how he was able to dispense with corporal punishment. He replied to me, with a very determined look, ‘The slaves know that the work _must_ be done, and that it is better to do it without punishment than with it.’ In other words, the certainty and dread of chastisement were so impressed on them, that they never incurred it.
“I then found that the slaves on this well-managed estate, _decreased_ in number. I asked the cause. He replied, with perfect frankness and ease, ‘The gang is not large enough for the estate.’ In other words, they were not equal to the work of the plantation, and, yet were _made to do it_, though with the certainty of abridging life.
“On this plantation the huts were uncommonly convenient. There was an unusual air of neatness. A superficial observer would have called the slaves happy. Yet they were living under a severe, subduing discipline, and were _over-worked_ to a degree that _shortened life_.”–_Channing on Slavery_, page 162, first edition.
PHILEMON BLISS, Esq., a lawyer of Elyria, Ohio, who spent some time in Florida, gives the following testimony to the over-working of the slaves:
“It is not uncommon for hands, in hurrying times, beside working all day, to labor half the night. This is usually the case on sugar plantations, during the sugar-boiling season; and on cotton, during its gathering. Beside the regular task of picking cotton, averaging of the short staple, when the crop is good, 100 pounds a day to the hand, the ginning (extracting the seed,) and baling was done in the night. Said Mr. —- to me, while conversing upon the customary labor of slaves, ‘I work my niggers in a hurrying time till 11 or 12 o’clock at night, and have them up by four in the morning.’
“Beside the common inducement, the desire of gain, to make a large crop, the desire is increased by that spirit of gambling, so common at the south. It is very common to _bet_ on the issue of a crop. A. lays a wager that, from a given number of hands, he will make more cotton than B. The wager is accepted, and then begins the contest; and who bears the burden of it? How many tears, yea, how many broken constitutions, and premature deaths, have been the effect of this spirit? From the desperate energy of purpose with which the gambler pursues his object, from the passions which the practice calls into exercise, we might conjecture many. Such is the fact. In Middle Florida, a _broken-winded_ negro is more common than a _broken-winded_ horse; though usually, when they are declared unsound, or when their constitution is so broken that their recovery is despaired of, they are exported to New Orleans, to drag out the remainder of their days in the cane-field and sugar house. I would not insinuate that all planters gamble upon their crops; but I mention the practice as one of the common inducements to ‘push niggers.’ Neither would I assert that all planters drive the hands to the injury of their health. I give it as a _general_ rule in the district of Middle Florida, and I have no reason to think that negroes are driven worse there than in other fertile sections. People there told me that the situation of the slaves was far better than in Mississippi and Louisiana. And from comparing the crops with those made in the latter states, and for other reasons, I am convinced of the truth of their statements.”
DR. DEMMING, a gentleman of high respectability, residing in Ashland, Richland county, Ohio, stated to Professor Wright, of New York city,
“That during a recent tour at the south, while ascending the Ohio river, on the steamboat Fame, he had an opportunity of conversing with a Mr. Dickinson, a resident of Pittsburg, in company with a number of cotton-planters and slave-dealers, from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, Mr. Dickinson stated as a fact, that the sugar planters upon the sugar coast in Louisiana had ascertained, that, as it was usually necessary to employ about _twice_ the amount of labor during the boiling season, that was required during the season of raising, they could, by excessive driving, day and night, during the boiling season, accomplish the whole labor _with one set of hands_. By pursuing this plan, they could afford _to sacrifice a set of hands once in seven years!_ He further stated that this horrible system was now practised to a considerable extent! The correctness of this statement was substantially admitted by the slaveholders then on board.”
The late MR. SAMUEL BLACKWELL, a highly respected citizen of Jersey city, opposite the city of New York, and a member of the Presbyterian church, visited many of the sugar plantations in Louisiana a few years since: and having for many years been the owner of an extensive sugar refinery in England, and subsequently in this country, he had not only every facility afforded him by the planters, for personal inspection of all parts of the process of sugar-making, but received from them the most unreserved communications, as to their management of their slaves. Mr. B., after his return, frequently made the following statement to gentlemen of his acquaintance,–“That the planters generally declared to him, that they were _obliged_ so to over-work their slaves during the sugar-making season, (from eight to ten weeks,) as to use _them up_ in seven or eight years. For, said they, after the process is commenced, it must be pushed without cessation, night and day; and we cannot afford to keep a sufficient number of slaves to do the _extra_ work at the time of sugar-making, as we could not profitably employ them the rest of the year.”
It is not only true of the sugar planters, but of the slaveholders generally throughout the far south and south west, that they believe it for their interest to wear out the slaves by excessive toil in eight or ten years after they put them into the field.[4]
[Footnote 4: Alexander Jones. Esq., a large planter in West Feliciana, Louisiana, published a communication in the “North Carolina True American,” Nov. 25, 1838, in which, speaking of the horses employed in the mills on the plantations for ginning cotton, he says, they “are much whipped and jaded;” and adds, “In fact, this service is so severe on horses, as to shorten their lives in many instances, if not actually kill them in gear.”
Those who work one kind of their “live stock” so as to “shorten their lives,” or “kill them in gear” would not stick at doing the same thing to another kind.]
REV. DOCTOR REED, of London, who went through Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland in the summer of 1834, gives the following testimony:
“I was told confidently and from _excellent authority_, that recently at a meeting of planters in South Carolina, the question was seriously discussed whether the slave is more profitable to the owner, if well fed, well clothed, and worked lightly, or if made the most of _at once_, and exhausted in some eight years. The decision was in favor of the last alternative. That decision will perhaps make many shudder. But to my mind this is not the chief evil. The greater and original evil is considering the _slave as property_. If he is only property and my property, then I have some right to ask how I may make that property most available.”
“Visit to the American Churches,” by Rev. Drs. Reed and Mattheson. Vol. 2 p. 173.
REV. JOHN O. CHOULES, recently pastor of a Baptist Church at New Bedford, Massachusetts, now of Buffalo, New York, made substantially the following statement in a speech in Boston.
“While attending the Baptist Triennial Convention at Richmond, Virginia, in the spring of 1835, as a delegate from Massachusetts, I had a conversation on slavery, with an officer of the Baptist Church in that city, at whose house I was a guest. I asked my host if he did not apprehend that the slaves would eventually rise and exterminate their masters.
“Why,” said the gentleman, “I used to apprehend such a catastrophe, but God has made a providential opening, a _merciful safety valve_, and now I do not feel alarmed in the _prospect_ of what is coming. ‘What do you mean,’ said Mr. Choules, ‘by providence opening a merciful safety valve?’ Why, said the gentleman, I will tell you; the slave traders come from the cotton and sugar plantations of the South and are willing to buy up more slaves than we can part with. We must keep a stock for the purpose of _rearing_ slaves, but we part with the most valuable, and at the same time, the most _dangerous_, and the demand is very constant and likely to be so, for when they go to these southern states, the average existence Is ONLY FIVE YEARS!”
Monsieur C.C. ROBIN, a highly intelligent French gentleman, who resided in Louisiana from 1802 to 1806, and published a volume of travels, gives the following testimony to the over-working of the slaves there:
“I have been a witness, that after the fatigue of the day, their labors have been prolonged several hours by the light of the moon; and then, before they could think of rest, they must pound and cook their corn; and yet, long before day, an implacable scold, whip in hand, would arouse them from their slumbers. Thus, of more than twenty negroes, who in twenty years should have doubled, the number _was reduced to four or five_.”
In conclusion we add, that slaveholders have in the most public and emphatic manner declared themselves guilty of barbarous inhumanity toward their slaves in exacting from them such _long continued daily labor_. The Legislatures of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia, have passed laws providing that convicts in their state prisons and penitentiaries, “shall be employed in work each day in the year except Sundays, not exceeding _eight_ hours, in the months of November, December, and January; _nine_ hours, in the months of February and October, and _ten_ hours in the rest of the year.” Now contrast this _legal_ exaction of labor from CONVICTS with the exaction from slaves as established by the preceding testimony. The reader perceives that the amount of time, in which by the preceding laws of Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia, the _convicts_ in their prisons are required to labor, is on an average during the year but little more than NINE HOURS daily. Whereas, the laws of South Carolina permit the master to _compel_ his slaves to work FIFTEEN HOURS in the twenty-four, in summer, and FOURTEEN in the winter–which would be in winter, from daybreak in the morning until _four hours_ after sunset!–See 2 Brevard’s Digest, 243.
The other slave states, except Louisiana, have _no laws_ respecting the labor of slaves, consequently if the master should work his slaves day and night without sleep till they drop dead, _he violates no law!_
The law of Louisiana provides for the slaves but TWO AND A HALF HOURS in the twenty-four for “rest!” See law of Louisiana, act of July 7 1806, Martin’s Digest 6. 10–12.
III. CLOTHING.
We propose to show under this head, that the clothing of the slaves by day, and their covering by night, are inadequate, either for comfort or decency.
Hon. T.T. Bouldin, a slave-holder, and member of Congress from Virginia in a speech in Congress, Feb. 16, 1835.
Mr. Bouldin said “_he knew_ that many negroes had _died_ from exposure to weather,” and added, “they are clad in a _flimsy fabric, that will turn neither wind nor water_.”
George Buchanan, M.D., of Baltimore, member of the American Philosophical Society, in an oration at Baltimore, July 4, 1791.
“The slaves, _naked_ and starved, _often_ fall victims to the inclemencies of the weather.”
Wm. Savery of Philadelphia, an eminent Minister of the Society of Friends, who went through the Southern states in 1791, on a religious visit; after leaving Savannah, Ga., we find the following entry in his journal, 6th, month, 28, 1791.
“We rode through many rice swamps, where the blacks were very numerous, great droves of these poor slaves, working up to the middle in water, men and women nearly _naked_.”
Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio, a native of Tennessee.
“In every slave-holding state, _many slaves suffer extremely_, both while they labor and while they sleep, _for want of clothing_ to keep them warm.”
John Parrish, late of Philadelphia, a highly esteemed minister in the Society of Friends, who travelled through the South in 1804.
“It is shocking to the feelings of humanity, in travelling through some of those states, to see those poor objects, [slaves,] especially in the inclement season, in _rags_, and _trembling with the cold_.”
“They suffer them, both male and female, _to go without clothing_ at the age of ten and twelve years”
Rev. Phineas Smith, Centreville, Allegany, Co., N.Y. Mr. S. has just returned from a residence of several years at the south, chiefly in Virginia, Louisiana, and among the American settlers in Texas.
“The apparel of the slaves, is of the coarsest sort and _exceedingly deficient_ in quantity. I have been on many plantations where children of eight and ten yeas old, were in a state of _perfect nudity_. Slaves are _in general wretchedly clad_.”
Wm. Ladd, Esq., of Minot, Maine, recently a slaveholder in Florida.
“They were allowed two suits of clothes a year, viz. one pair of trowsers with a shirt or frock of osnaburgh for summer; and for winter, one pair of trowsers, and a jacket of negro cloth, with a baize shirt and a pair of shoes. Some allowed hats, and some did not; and they were generally, I believe, allowed one blanket in two years. Garments of similar materials were allowed the women.”
A Kentucky physician, writing in the Western Medical Reformer, in 1836, on the diseases peculiar to slaves, says.
“They are _imperfectly clothed_ both summer and winter.”
Mr. Stephen E. Maltby, Inspector of provisions, Skeneateles, N.Y., who resided sometime in Alabama.
“I was at Huntsville, Alabama, in 1818-19, I frequently saw slaves on and around the public square, _with hardly a rag of clothing on them_, and in a _great many_ instances with but a single garment both in summer and in winter; generally the only bedding of the slaves was a _blanket_.”
Reuben G. Macy, Hudson, N.Y. member of the Society of Friends, who resided in South Carolina, in 1818 and 19.
“Their clothing consisted of a pair of trowsers and jacket, made of ‘negro cloth.’ The women a petticoat, a very short ‘short-gown,’ and _nothing else_, the same kind of cloth; some of the women had an old pair of shoes, but they _generally went barefoot_.”
Mr. Lemuel Sapington, of Lancaster, Pa., a native of Maryland, and formerly a slaveholder.
“Their clothing is often made by themselves after night, though sometimes assisted by the old women, who are no longer able to do out-door work; consequently it is harsh and uncomfortable. And I have very frequently seen those who had not attained the age of twelve years _go naked_.”
Philemon Bliss, Esq., a lawyer in Elyria, Ohio, who lived in Florida in 1834 and 35.
“It is very common to see the younger class of slaves up to eight or ten _without any clothing_, and most generally the laboring men wear _no shirts_ in the warm season. The perfect nudity of the younger slaves is so familiar to the whites of both sexes, that they seem to witness it with perfect indifference. I may add that the aged and feeble often _suffer from cold_.”
Richard Macy, a member of the Society of Friends, Hudson, N.Y., who has lived in Georgia.
“For _bedding_ each slave was allowed _one blanket_, in which they rolled themselves up. I examined their houses, but could not find any thing like _a bed_.”
W.C. Gildersleeve, Esq., Wilkesbarre, Pa., a native of Georgia.
“It is an every day sight to see women as well as men, with no other covering than a _few filthy rags fastened above the hips_, reaching midway to the ankles. _I never knew any kind of covering for the head_ given. Children of both sexes, from infancy to ten years are seen in companies on the plantations, _in a state of perfect nudity_. This was so common that the most refined and delicate beheld them unmoved.”
Mr. William Leftwich, a native of Virginia, now a member of the Presbyterian Church, in Delhi, Ohio.