The Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

  the first, when, being only co-proprietor of the slave, his co-proprietor demands

  the sale, in order to make partition of the property; second, when the master

  shall be CONVICTED of cruel treatment of his slave, AND THE JUDGE SHALL

  DEEM IT PROPER TO PRONOUNCE, besides the penalty established for such cases,

  that the slave shall be sold at public auction, in order to place him out of the

  reach of the power which his master has abused.

  -- The question for a jury to determine in this case is, What is

  cruel treatment of a slave? Now, if all these barbarities which

  have been sanctioned by the legislative Acts which we have

  quoted are not held to be cruel treatment, the question is, What

  is cruel treatment of a slave?

  Everything that fiendish barbarity could desire can be effected

  under the protection of the law of South Carolina, which, as we

  have just shown, exists also in Louisiana. It is true the law

  restrains from some particular forms of cruelty. If any person

  has a mind to scald or burn his slave--and it seems, by the

  statute, that there have been such people--these statutes merely

  provide that he shall do it in decent privacy; for, as the very

  keystone of Southern jurisprudence is the rejection of coloured,

  testimony, such an outrage, if perpetrated most deliberately in

  the presence of hundreds of slaves, could not be proved upon

  the master.

  It is to be supposed that the fiendish people whom such

  statutes have in view will generally have enough of common

  sense not to perform it in the presence of white witnesses, since

  this simple act of prudence will render them entirely safe in

  doing whatever they have a mind to. We are told, it is true,

  as we have been reminded by our friend in the newspaper before

  quoted, that in Louisiana the deficiency caused by the rejection

  of negro testimony is supplied by the following most remarkable

  provision of the Code Noir:--

  If any slave be mutilated, beaten, or ill-treated, contrary to the true intent and

  meaning of this section, when no one shall be present, in such case the owner or

  other person having the charge or management of said slave thus mutilated, shall

  be deemed responsible and guilty of the said offence, and shall be prosecuted

  without further evidence, unless the said owner, or other person so as aforesaid,

  can prove the contrary by means of good and sufficient evidence, or can clear

  himself by his own oath, which said oath every Court under the cognizance of

  which such offence shall have been examined and tried is by this Act authorised

  to administer.

  -- Would one have supposed that sensible people could ever pub-

  lish as a law such a specimen of utter legislative nonsense--so

  ridiculous on the very face of it!

  The object is to bring to justice those fiendish people who

  burn, scald, mutilate, &c. How is this done? Why, it is en-

  acted that the fact of finding the slave in this condition shall be

  held presumption against the owner or overseer, unless--unless

  what? Why, unless he will prove to the contrary--or swear to

  the contrary, it is no matter which--either will answer the pur-

  pose. The question is, If a man is bad enough to do these things,

  will he not be bad enough to swear falsely? As if men who are

  the incarnation of cruelty, as supposed by the deeds in question,

  would not have sufficient intrepidity of conscience to compass a

  false oath!

  What was this law ever made for? Can any one imagine?

  Upon this whole subject we may quote the language of Judge

  Stroud, who thus sums up the whole amount of the protective

  laws for the slave in the United States of America:--

  Upon a fair review of what has been written on the subject of this proposition,

  the result is found to be--that the master's power to inflict corporal punishment

  to any extent, short of life and limb, is fully sanctioned by law, in all the slave-

  holding States; that the master, in at least two States, is expressly protected in

  using the horse-whip and cowskin as instruments for beating his slave; that he

  may with entire impunity, in the same States, load his slave with irons, or sub-

  ject him to perpetual imprisonment, whenever he may so choose; that, for cruelly

  scalding, wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out an eye, and for any other

  dismemberment, if proved, a fine of one hundred pounds currency only is incurred

  in South Carolina; that, though in all the States the wilful, deliberate, and mali-

  cious murder of the slave is now directed to be punished with death, yet, as in

  the case of a white offender, none except whites can give evidence, a conviction

  can seldom, if ever, take place.

  -- One very singular antithesis of two laws of Louisiana will still

  further show that deadness of public sentiment on cruelty to the

  slave which is an inseparable attendant on the system. It will

  be recollected that the remarkable protective law of South Caro-

  lina, with respect to scalding, burning, cutting out the tongue,

  and putting out the eye of the slave, has been substantially en-

  acted in Louisiana; and that the penalty for a man's doing these

  things there, if he has not sense enough to do it privately, is not

  more than five hundred dollars.

  Now, compare this other statute of Louisiana (Rev. Stat. 1852,

  p. 552, § 151):--

  If any person or persons, &c., shall cut or break any iron chain or collar,

  Stroud, p. 41.

  which any master of slaves shall have used, in order to prevent

  the running away or escape of any such slave or slaves, such per-

  son or persons so offending shall, on conviction, &c., be fined not less than two

  hundred dollars, nor exceeding one thousand dollars; and suffer imprisonment

  for a term not exceeding two years, nor less than six months.

  -- Some Englishmen may naturally ask, “What is this iron

  collar which the Legislature have thought worthy of being pro-

  tected by a special Act?” On this subject will be presented the

  testimony of an unimpeachable witness, Miss Sarah M. Grimké,

  a personal friend of the author. “Miss Grimké is a daughter

  of the late Judge Grimké, of the Supreme Court of South Caro-

  lina, and sister of the late Hon. Thomas S. Grimké.” She is

  now a member of the Society of Friends, and resides in Bell-

  ville, New Jersey. The statement given is of a kind that its

  author did not mean to give, nor wish to give, and never would

  have given, had it not been made necessary to illustrate this

  passage in the slave-law. The account occurs in a statement

  which Miss Grimké furnished to her brother-in-law, Mr. Weld,

  and has been before the public ever since 1839, in his work

  entitled Slavery as It is, p. 22.

  A handsome mulatto woman, about eighteen or twenty years of age, whose in-

  dependent spirit could not brook the degradation of slavery, was in the habit of

  running away: for this offence she had been repeatedly sent by her master and

  mistress to be whipped by the keeper of the Charleston workhouse. This had

  been done with such inhuman severity as t
o lacerate her back in a most shocking

  manner; a finger could not be laid between the cuts. But the love of liberty

  was too strong to be annihilated by torture; and, as a last resort, she was whipped

  at several different times, and kept a close prisoner. A heavy iron collar, with

  three long prongs projecting from it, was placed round her neck, and a strong and

  sound front tooth was extracted, to serve as a mark to describe her, in case of

  escape. Her sufferings at this 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 out-

  rages 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 alms-giving was concerned, a charitable woman, and tender-hearted to the

  poor; and yet this suffering slave, who was the seamstress of the family, was con-

  tinually 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.

  This iron collar the author has often heard of from sources

  equally authentic.* That one will meet with it every day in

  walking the streets, is not probable; but that it must have been

  used with some great degree of frequency, is evident from the

  fact of a law being thought necessary to protect it. But look at

  the penalty of the two protective laws! The fiendish cruelties

  described in the Act of South Carolina cost the perpetrator not

  more than five hundred dollars, if he does them before white

  people. The act of humanity costs from two hundred to one

  thousand dollars, and imprisonment from six months to two

  years, according to discretion of Court! What public sentiment

  was it which made these laws?

  * The iron collar was also in vogue in North Carolina, as the following ex-

  tract from the statute-book will show. The wearers of this article of apparel

  certainly have some reason to complain of the “tyranny of fashion.”

  “When the keeper of the said public jail shall, by direction of such Court as

  aforesaid, let out any negro or runaway to hire, to any person or persons whom-

  soever, the said keeper shall, at the time of his delivery, cause an iron collar to

  be put on the neck of such negro or runaway, with the letters P. G. stamped

  thereon; and thereafter the said keeper shall not be answerable for any escape of

  the said negro or runaway.”

  --

  CHAPTER VI.

  PROTECTIVE ACTS WITH REGARD TO FOOD AND RAIMENT,

  LABOUR, ETC.

  Illustrative Drama of Tom v. Legree, under the Law of South Carolina.--

  Separation of Parent and Child.

  Having finished the consideration of the laws which protect

  the life and limb of the slave, the reader may feel a curiosity to

  know something of the provisions by which he is protected in

  regard to food and clothing, and from the exactions of excessive

  labour. It is true, there are multitudes of men in the Northern

  States who would say, at once, that such enactments, on the

  very face of them, must be superfluous and absurd. “What!”

  they say, “are not the slaves property? and is it likely that any

  man will impair the market value of his own property by not

  giving them sufficient food or clothing, or by overworking

  them?” This process of reasoning appears to have been less

  convincing to the legislators of Southern States than to gen-

  tlemen generally at the North; since, as Judge Taylor says,

  Wheeler, p. 220. State v. Sue, Cameron & Norwood's C. Rep. 54.

  “the Act of 1786 (Iredell's Revisal, p. 588) does,

  in the preamble, recognise the fact, that many persons, by cruel treatment of their slaves, cause

  them to commit crimes for which they are exe-

  cuted; and the judge further explains this

  language, by saying, “The cruel treatment here alluded to must

  consist in withholding from them the necessaries of life; and

  the crimes thus resulting are such as are necessary to furnish

  them with food and raiment.”

  The State of South Carolina, in the Act of 1740 (see Stroud's

  Sketch, p. 28), had a section with the following language in its

  preamble:--

  Whereas many owners of slaves, and others who have the care, management,

  Stroud, p. 29.

  and overseeing of slaves, do confine them so closely to hard labour

  that they have not sufficient time for natural rest;--

  and the law goes on to enact that the slave shall not work more

  than fifteen hours a day in summer, and fourteen in winter.

  Judge Stroud makes it appear that in three of the slave States

  the time allotted for work to convicts in prison, whose punish-

  ment is to consist in hard labour, cannot exceed ten hours, even

  in the summer months. This was the protective Act of South Carolina, designed to

  reform the abusive practices of masters who confined their slaves

  so closely that they had not time for natural rest! What sort

  of habits of thought do these humane provisions show, in the

  makers of them? In order to protect the slave from what they

  consider undue exaction, they humanely provide that he shall be

  obliged to work only four or five hours longer than the convicts

  in the prison of the neighbouring State! In the Island of

  Jamaica, besides many holidays which were accorded by law to

  the slave, ten hours a day was the extent to which he was

  compelled by law ordinarily to work.--See Stroud, p. 29.

  With regard to protective Acts concerning food and clothing,

  Judge Stroud gives the following example from the legislation of

  South Carolina. The author gives it as quoted by Stroud,

  p. 32.

  In case any person, &c., who shall be the owner or who shall have the care,

  government, or charge of any slave or slaves, shall deny, neglect, or refuse to allow

  such slave or slaves, &c., sufficient clothing, covering, or food, it shall and may be

  lawful for any person or persons, on behalf of such slave or slaves, to make

  complaint to the next neighbouring justice in the parish where such slave or slaves

  live, or are usually employed, * * * and the said justice shall summon the

  party against whom such complaint shall be made, and shall inquire of, hear, and

  determine the same; and if the said justice shall find the said complaint to be

  true, or that such person will not exculpate or clear himself from the charge, by

  his or her own oath, which such person shall be at liberty to do in all cases where

  positive proof is not given of the offence, such justice shall and may make such

  orders upon the same, for the relief of such slave or slaves, as he in his dis-

  cretion shall think fit; and shall and may set and impose a fine or penalty on

  any person who shall offend in the premises, in any sum not exceeding twenty

  pounds current money, for each offence.

  -- A similar law obtains in Louisiana.--(Rev. Stat. 1852,

  p. 557, § 166.)

 
; Now, would not anybody think, from the virtuous solemnity

  and gravity of this Act, that it was intended in some way to

  amount to something? Let us give a little sketch, to show how

  much it does amount to. Angelina Grimké Weld, sister to

  Sarah Grimké, before quoted, gives the following account of the

  situation of slaves on plantations:*

  And here let me say, that the treatment of plantation slaves cannot be fully

  known, except by the poor sufferers themselves, and their drivers and overseers.

  In a multitude of instances, even the master can know very little of the actual

  condition of his own field-slaves, and his wife and daughters far less. A few facts

  concerning my own family will show this. Our permanent residence was in

  Charleston; our country seat (Bellemont) was two hundred miles distant, in the

  north-western part of the State, where, for some years, our family spent a few

  months annually. Our plantation was three miles from this family mansion.

  There all the field-slaves lived and worked. Occasionally--once a month, perhaps

  --some of the family would ride over to the plantation; but I never visited the

  fields where the slaves were at work, and knew almost nothing of their condition;

  but this I do know, that the overseers who had charge of them were generally

  unprincipled and intemperate men. But I rejoice to know that the general treat-

  ment of slaves in that region of country was far milder than on the plantations in

  the lower country.

  Throughout all the eastern and middle portions of the State, the planters very

  rarely reside permanently on their plantations. They have almost invariably two residences, and spend less than half the year on their estates. Even while spending

  a few months on them, politics, field-sports, races, speculations, journeys, visits,

  company, literary pursuits, &c., absorb so much of their time, that they must, to a

  considerable extent, take the condition of their slaves on trust, from the reports

  of their overseers. I make this statement, because these slaveholders (the

  wealthier class) are, I believe, almost the only ones who visit the North with

  their families; and Northern opinions of slavery are based chiefly on their