Thus far by way of considering the protective acts of North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee.
Certain miscellaneous protective acts of various other states will now be cited, merely as specimens1 of the spirit of legislation.
Stroud, p. 39. 2 Brevard’s Digest, p. 241.
In South Carolina, the act of 1740 punished the wilful4, deliberate murder of a slave by disfranchisement, and by a fine of seven hundred pounds current money, or, in default of payment, imprisonment5 for seven years. But the wilful murder of a slave, in the sense contemplated6 in this law, is a crime which would not often occur. The kind of murder which was most frequent among masters or overseers was guarded against by another section of the same act,—how adequately the reader will judge for himself, from the following quotation7:
Stroud’s Sketch8, p. 40. 2 Brevard’s Digest, 241. James’ Digest, 392.
If any person shall, on a sudden heat or passion, or by undue9 correction, kill his own slave, or the slave of any other person, he shall forfeit10 the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds current money.
In 1821 the act punishing the wilful murder of the slave only with fine or imprisonment was mainly repealed11, and it was enacted12 that such crime should be punished by death; but the latter section, which relates to killing13 the slave in sudden heat or passion, or by undue correction, has been altered only by diminishing the pecuniary14 penalty to a fine of five hundred dollars, authorizing15 also imprisonment for six months.
The next protective statute16 to be noticed is the following from the act of 1740, South Carolina.
Stroud, p. 40. 2 Brevard’s Digest, 241.
In case any person shall wilfully17 cut out the tongue, put out the eye, * * * or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict19 any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horse-whip, cowskin, switch 88or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning20 such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.
The language of this law, like many other of these protective enactments21, is exceedingly suggestive; the first suggestion that occurs is, What sort of an institution, and what sort of a state of society is it, that called out a law worded like this? Laws are generally not made against practices that do not exist, and exist with some degree of frequency.
The advocates of slavery are very fond of comparing it to the apprentice23 system of England and America. Let us suppose that in the British Parliament, or in a New England Legislature, the following law is proposed, under the title of An Act for the Protection of Apprentices24, &c. &c.
In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any apprentice of any limb or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horse-whip, cowskin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on or confining or imprisoning such apprentice, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.
What a sensation such a proposed law would make in England may be best left for Englishmen to say; but in New England it would simply constitute the proposer a candidate for Bedlam25. Yet that such a statute is necessary in South Carolina is evident enough, if we reflect that, because there is no such statute in Virginia, it has been decided26 that a wretch27 who perpetrates all these enormities on a slave cannot even be indicted28 for it, unless the slave dies.
But let us look further:—What is to be the penalty when any of these fiendish things are done?
Why, the man forfeits29 a hundred pounds, current money. Surely he ought to pay as much as that for doing so very unnecessary an act, when the Legislature bountifully allows him to inflict any torture which revengeful ingenuity30 could devise, by means of horse-whip, cowskin, switch or small stick, or putting irons on, or confining and imprisoning. One would surely think that here was sufficient scope and variety of legalized means of torture to satisfy any ordinary appetite for vengeance31. It would appear decidedly that any more piquant32 varieties of agony ought to be an extra charge. The advocates of slavery are fond of comparing the situation of the slave with that of the English laborer33. We are not aware that the English laborer has been so unfortunate as to be protected by any enactment22 like this, since the days of villeinage.
Stroud’s Sketch, p. 41. 1 Mar34. Digest, 654.
Judge Stroud says, that the same law, substantially, has been adopted in Louisiana. It is true that the civil code of Louisiana thus expresses its humane35 intentions.
The slave is entirely36 subject to the will of his master, who may correct and chastise37 him, though not with unusual rigor38, nor so as to maim39 or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death.—Civil Code of Louisiana, Article 173.
The expression “unusual rigor” is suggestive, again. It will afford large latitude40 for a jury, in states where slaves are in the habit of dying under moderate correction; where outlawed41 slaves may be killed by any means which any person thinks fit; and where laws have to be specifically made against scalding, burning, cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye, &c. What will be thought unusual rigor? This is a question, certainly, upon which persons in states not so constituted can have no means of forming an opinion.
In one of the newspaper extracts with which we prefaced our account, the following protective act of Louisiana is alluded42 to, as being particularly satisfactory and efficient. We give it, as quoted by Judge Stroud in his Sketch, page 58, giving his reference.
No master shall be compelled to sell his slave, but in one of two cases, to wit: 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 auction43, in order to place him out of the reach of the power which his master has abused.—Civil Code, Art. 192.
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 legislative44 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 statutes45 merely provide 89that he shall do it in decent privacy; for, as the very keystone of Southern jurisprudence is the rejection47 of colored testimony48, such an outrage49, if perpetrated most deliberately50 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 prudence46 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 remarkable51 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 prosecuted52 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 authorized53 to administer.—Code Noir. Crimes and Offences, 56. xvii. Rev3. Stat. 1852, p. 550, § 141.
Would one have supposed that sensible people could ever publish as a law such a specimen2 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 enacted that the fact of finding the slave in this condition shall be held presumption54 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 purpose. 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 intrepidity55 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 fully18 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 impunity56, in the same states, load his slave with irons, or subject 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 incurred57 in South Carolina; that, though in all the states the wilful, deliberate and malicious58 murder of the slave is now directed to be punished with death, yet, as in the case of a white offender59 none except whites can give evidence, a conviction can seldom, if ever, take place.—Stroud’s Sketch, p. 43.
One very singular antithesis60 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 recollected61 that the remarkable protective law of South Carolina, with respect to scalding, burning, cutting out the tongue, and putting out the eye of the slave, has been substantially enacted in Louisiana; and that the penalty for a man’s doing these things there, if he has not sense enough to do it privately62, is not more than five hundred dollars.
Now, compare this other statute of Louisiana, (Rev. Stat. 1852, p. 552, § 151):
Stroud, p. 41.
If any person or persons, &c., shall cut or break any iron chain or collar, which any master of slaves should have used, in order to prevent the running away or escape of any such slave or slaves, such person 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.—Act of Assembly of March 6, 1819. Pamphlet, page 64.
Some Englishmen may naturally ask, “What is this iron collar which the Legislature have thought worthy63 of being protected by a special act?” On this subject will be presented the testimony of an unimpeachable64 witness, Miss Sarah M. Grimké, a personal friend of the author. “Miss Grimké is a daughter of the late Judge Grimké, of the Supreme65 Court of South Carolina, and sister of the late Hon. Thomas S. Grimké.” She is now a member of the Society of Friends, and resides in Bellville, New Jersey66. 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 illustrate67 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 independent spirit could not brook68 the degradation69 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 inhuman70 severity as to 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 annihilated71 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 agonizing72; she could lie in no position but on her back, which was sore from scourgings, as I can testify from personal inspection73; and her only place of rest was the floor, on a blanket. These outrages74 were committed in a family where the mistress daily read the Scriptures75, 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 chamber76 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 compassion77.
This iron collar the author has often heard of from sources equally authentic78.[11] 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 discretion79 of court! What public sentiment was it which made these laws?
11. The iron collar was also in vogue80 in North Carolina, as the following extract 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 runaway81 to hire, to any person or persons whomsoever, 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.”—Potter’s Revisal, i. 162.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
specimens
|
|
| n.样品( specimen的名词复数 )；范例；（化验的）抽样；某种类型的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
specimen
|
|
| n.样本，标本 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
wilful
|
|
| adj.任性的，故意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
sketch
|
|
| n.草图；梗概；素描；v.素描；概述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
undue
|
|
| adj.过分的；不适当的；未到期的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
forfeit
|
|
| vt.丧失；n.罚金，罚款，没收物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
repealed
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
pecuniary
|
|
| adj.金钱的；金钱上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
authorizing
|
|
| 授权，批准，委托( authorize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
wilfully
|
|
| adv.任性固执地；蓄意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
inflict
|
|
| vt.(on)把…强加给，使遭受，使承担 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
imprisoning
|
|
| v.下狱，监禁( imprison的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
enactments
|
|
| n.演出( enactment的名词复数 )；展现；规定；通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
enactment
|
|
| n.演出，担任…角色；制订，通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
apprentice
|
|
| n.学徒，徒弟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
apprentices
|
|
| 学徒，徒弟( apprentice的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
bedlam
|
|
| n.混乱，骚乱；疯人院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
wretch
|
|
| n.可怜的人，不幸的人；卑鄙的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
indicted
|
|
| 控告，起诉( indict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
forfeits
|
|
| 罚物游戏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
piquant
|
|
| adj.辛辣的，开胃的，令人兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
laborer
|
|
| n.劳动者，劳工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
mar
|
|
| vt.破坏，毁坏，弄糟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
humane
|
|
| adj.人道的，富有同情心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
chastise
|
|
| vt.责骂，严惩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
rigor
|
|
| n.严酷，严格，严厉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
maim
|
|
| v.使残废，使不能工作，使伤残 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
latitude
|
|
| n.纬度，行动或言论的自由(范围)，(pl.)地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
outlawed
|
|
| 宣布…为不合法（outlaw的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
auction
|
|
| n.拍卖；拍卖会；vt.拍卖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
prosecuted
|
|
| a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
authorized
|
|
| a.委任的，许可的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
presumption
|
|
| n.推测，可能性，冒昧，放肆，[法律]推定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
intrepidity
|
|
| n.大胆，刚勇；大胆的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
impunity
|
|
| n.(惩罚、损失、伤害等的)免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
antithesis
|
|
| n.对立；相对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
recollected
|
|
| adj.冷静的；镇定的；被回忆起的；沉思默想的v.记起，想起( recollect的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
unimpeachable
|
|
| adj.无可指责的；adv.无可怀疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
jersey
|
|
| n.运动衫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
brook
|
|
| n.小河，溪；v.忍受，容让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
degradation
|
|
| n.降级；低落；退化；陵削；降解；衰变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
inhuman
|
|
| adj.残忍的，不人道的，无人性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
annihilated
|
|
| v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的过去式和过去分词 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
agonizing
|
|
| adj.痛苦难忍的；使人苦恼的v.使极度痛苦；折磨(agonize的ing形式) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
compassion
|
|
| n.同情，怜悯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
Vogue
|
|
| n.时髦，时尚；adj.流行的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
runaway
|
|
| n.逃走的人，逃亡，亡命者；adj.逃亡的，逃走的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |