Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

  unfeeling, bloody, and diabolical transaction.

  You caused your unoffending, unresisting slave to be bound hand and foot, and,

  by a refinement in cruelty, compelled his companion, perhaps the friend of his

  heart, to chop his head with an axe, and to cast his body, yet convulsing with the

  agonies of death, into the water! And this deed you dared to perpetrate in the

  very harbour of Charleston, within a few yards of the shore, unblushingly, in the

  face of open day. Had your murderous arm been raised against your equals, whom

  the laws of self-defence and the more efficacious law of the land unite to protect,

  your crimes would not have been without precedent, and would have seemed less

  horrid. Your personal risk would at least have proved that, though a murderer,

  you were not a coward. But you too well knew that this unfortunate man, whom

  chance had subjected to your caprice, had not, like yourself, chartered to him by

  the laws of the land the sacred rights of nature; and that a stern but necessary

  policy had disarmed him of the rights of self-defence. Too well you knew that to

  you alone he could look for protection; and that your arm alone could shield him

  from oppression, or avenge his wrongs; yet that arm you cruelly stretched out for

  his destruction.

  The counsel who generously volunteered his services in your behalf, shocked

  at the enormity of your offence, endeavoured to find a refuge, as well for his own

  feelings as for those of all who heard your trial, in a derangement of your intel-

  lect. Several witnesses were examined to establish this fact; but the result of

  their testimony, it is apprehended, was as little satisfactory to his mind as to those

  of the jury to whom it was addressed. I sincerely wish this defence had proved

  successful, not from any desire to save you from the punishment which awaits

  you, and which you so richly merit, but from the desire of saving my country from

  the foul reproach of having in its bosom such a monster.

  From the peculiar situation of this country, our fathers felt themselves justified

  in subjecting to a very slight punishment he who murders a slave. Whether the

  present state of society require a continuation of this policy, so opposite to the

  apparent rights of humanity, it remains for a subsequent legislature to decide.

  Their attention would ere this have been directed to this subject, but, for the

  honour of human nature, such hardened sinners as yourself are rarely found to

  disturb the repose of society. The grand jury of this district, deeply impressed

  with your daring outrage against the laws both of God and man, have made a very

  strong expression of their feelings on the subject to the legislature; and, from the

  wisdom and justice of that body, the friends of humanity may confidently hope

  soon to see this blackest in the catalogue of human crimes pursued by appropriate

  punishment.

  In proceeding to pass the sentence which the law provides for your offence, I

  confess I never felt more forcibly the want of power to make respected the laws of

  my country, whose minister I am. You have already violated the majesty of those

  laws. You have profanely pleaded the law under which you stand convicted, as

  a justification of your crime. You have held that law in one hand, and brandished

  your bloody axe in the other, impiously contending that the one gave a license to

  the unrestrained use of the other.

  But, though you will go off unhurt in person, by the present sentence, expect

  not to escape with impunity. Your bloody deed has set a mark upon you, which

  I fear the good actions of your future life will not efface. You will be held in

  abhorrence by an impartial world, and shunned as a monster by every honest man.

  Your unoffending posterity will be visited, for your iniquity, by the stigma of

  deriving their origin from an unfeeling murderer. Your days, which will be but

  few, will be spent in wretchedness; and if your conscience be not steeled against

  every virtuous emotion, if you be not entirely abandoned to hardness of heart, the

  mangled, mutilated corpse of your murdered slave will ever be present in your

  imagination, obtrude itself into all your amusements, and haunt you in the hours

  of silence and repose.

  But, should you disregard the reproaches of an offended world, should you

  hear with callous insensibility the gnawings of a guilty conscience, yet remember,

  I charge you, remember, that an awful period is fast approaching, and with

  you is close at hand, when you must appear before a tribunal whose want of

  power can afford you no prospect of impunity; when you must raise your bloody

  hands at the bar of an impartial omniscient Judge! Remember, I pray you,

  remember, whilst yet you have time, that God is just, and that his vengeance

  will not sleep for ever!

  The penalty that followed this solemn denunciation was a fine

  of seven hundred pounds, current money, or, in default of pay-

  ment, imprisonment for seven years.

  And yet it seems that there have not been wanting those who

  consider the reform of this law “a refinement in humanity of

  doubtful policy!” To this sentiment, so high an authority as that

  of Chancellor Harper is quoted, as the reader will see by referring

  to the speech of Mr. Hunt in the last chapter. And, as is

  very common in such cases, the old law is vindicated as being, on

  the whole, a surer protection to the life of the slave than the

  new one. From the results of the last two trials, there would

  seem to be a fair show of plausibility in the argument; for under

  the old law it seems that Slater had at least to pay seven hun-

  dred pounds, while under the new Eliza Rowand comes off with

  only the penalty of “a most sifting scrutiny.”

  Thus it appears that the penalty of the law goes with the

  murderer of the slave.

  How is it executed in the cases which concern the life of the

  master? Look at this short notice of a recent trial of this

  kind, which is given in the Alexandria (Virginia) Gazette of

  October 23, 1852, as an extract from the Charleston (Virginia)

  Free Press:--

  [title]TRIAL OF NEGRO HENRY.

  The trial of this slave for an attack, with intent to kill, on the person of Mr.

  Harrison Anderson, was commenced on Monday and concluded on Tuesday

  evening. His Honour, Braxton Davenport, Esq., chief justice of the county, with

  four associate gentlemen justices, composed the Court.

  The commonwealth was represented by its attorney, Charles B. Harding, Esq.,

  and the accused ably and eloquently defended by Wm: C. Worthington, and John

  A. Thompson, Esqrs. The evidence of the prisoner's guilt was conclusive. A

  majority of the Court thought that he ought to suffer the extreme penalty of the

  law; but, as this required a unanimous agreement, he was sentenced to receive

  500 lashes, not more than thirty-nine at one time. The physician of the gaol was

  instructed to see that they should not be administered too frequently, and only

  when, in his opinion, he could bear them.

  In another paper we are told that the Free Press says:--

  A majority of the Court thought that he ought to suffer the extreme penalty

 
of the law; but, as this required a unanimous agreement, he was sentenced to

  receive 500 lashes, not more than thirty-nine at any one time. The physician of

  the gaol was instructed to see that they should not to be administered too

  frequently, and only when, in his opinion, he could bear them. This may seem to be harsh and inhuman punishment; but when we take into consideration that

  it is in accordance with the law of the land, and the further fact that the insub-

  ordination among the slaves of that State has become truly alarming, we cannot

  question the righteousness of the judgment.

  Will anybody say that the master's life is in more danger

  from the slave than the slave's from the master, that this dis-

  proportionate retribution is meted out? Those who coun-

  tenance such legislation will do well to ponder the solemn

  words of an ancient book, inspired by One who is no respecter

  of persons:--

  “If I have refused justice to my man-servant or maid-servant,

  When they had a cause with me,

  What shall I do when God riseth up?

  And when He visiteth, what shall I answer him?

  Did not He that made me in the womb make him?

  Did not the same God fashion us in the womb?”

  CHAPTER IX.

  MODERATE CORRECTION AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH--

  STATE v. CASTLEMAN.

  The author remarks that the record of the following trial

  was read by her a little time before writing the account of the

  death of Uncle Tom. The shocking particulars haunted her

  mind and were in her thoughts when the following sentence was

  written:--

  What man has nerve to do, man has not nerve to hear. What brother man

  and brother Christian must suffer, cannot be told us, even in our secret chamber,

  it so harrows up the soul. And yet, O my country, these things are done under

  the shadow of thy laws! O Christ, thy church sees them almost in silence!

  It is given precisely as prepared by Dr. G. Bailey, the very

  liberal and fair-minded editor of the National Era.

  Some time since, the newspapers of Virginia contained an account of a

  horrible tragedy, enacted in Clarke County, of that State. A slave of Colonel

  James Castleman, it was stated, had been chained by the neck, and whipped

  to death by his master, on the charge of stealing. The whole neighbourhood

  in which the transaction occurred was incensed; the Virginia papers abounded

  in denunciations of the cruel act; and the people of the North were called upon

  to bear witness to the justice which would surely be meted in a slave State to the

  master of a slave. We did not publish the account. The case was horrible; it

  was, we were confident, exceptional; it should not be taken as evidence of the

  general treatment of slaves; we chose to delay any notice of it till the courts

  should pronounce their judgment, and we could announce at once the crime and

  its punishment, so that the State might stand acquitted of the foul deed.

  Those who were so shocked at the transaction will be surprised and mortified to

  hear that the actors in it have been tried and acquitted; and when they read the

  following account of the trial and verdict published at the instance of the friends

  of the accused, their mortification will deepen into bitter indignation.

  “Colonel James Castleman.--The following statement, understood to have

  been drawn up by counsel, since the trial, has been placed by the friends of this

  gentleman in our hands for publication.

  “At the Circuit Superior Court of Clarke County, commencing on the 13th of

  October, Judge Samuels presiding, James Castleman and his son Stephen D. Castle-

  man were indicted jointly for the murder of negro Lewis, property of the latter.

  By advice of their counsel, the parties elected to be tried separately, and the

  attorney for the commonwealth directed that James Castleman should be tried

  first.

  “It was proved on this trial, that for many months previous to the occurrence

  the money drawer of the tavern kept by Stephen D. Castleman, and the liquors

  kept in large quantities in his cellar, had been pillaged from time to time, until

  the thefts had attained to a considerable amount. Suspicion had, from various

  causes, been directed to Lewis, and another negro, named Reuben (a blacksmith),

  the property of James Castleman; but by the aid of two of the house-servants they

  had eluded the most vigilant watch.

  “On the 20th of August last, in the afternoon, S. D. Castleman accidentally dis-

  covered a clue, by means of which, and through one of the house-servants impli-

  cated, he was enabled fully to detect the depredators, and to ascertain the manner

  in which the theft had been committed. He immediately sent for his father, living

  near him, and after communicating what he had discovered, it was determined that

  the offenders should be punished at once, and before they should know of the dis-

  covery that had been made.

  “Lewis was punished first; and in a manner, as was fully shown, to preclude

  all risk of injury to his person, by stripes with a broad leathern strap. He was

  punished severely, but to an extent by no means disproportionate to his offence;

  nor was it pretended in any quarter that this punishment implicated either his life

  or health. He confessed the offence, and admitted that it had been effected by

  false keys furnished by the blacksmith Reuben.

  “The latter servant was punished immediately afterwards. It was believed

  that he was the principal offender, and he was found to be more obdurate and

  contumacious than Lewis had been in reference to the offence. Thus it was

  proved, both by the prosecution and the defence, that he was punished with

  greater severity than his accomplice. It resulted in a like confession on his part,

  and he produced the false key, one fashioned by himself, by which the theft had

  been effected.

  “It was further shown, on the trial, that Lewis was whipped in the upper

  room of a warehouse, connected with Stephen Castleman's store, and near the

  public road, where he was at work at the time; that after he had been flogged,

  to secure his person, whilst they went after Reuben, he was confined by a chain

  around his neck, which was attached to a joist above his head. The length of

  this chain, the breadth and thickness of the joist, its height from the floor, and

  the circlet of chain on the neck, were accurately measured; and it was thus

  shown that the chain unoccupied by the circlet and the joist was a foot and a half

  longer than the space between the shoulders of the man and the joist above, or to

  that extent the chain hung loose above him; that the circlet (which was fastened

  so as to prevent its contraction) rested on the shoulders and breast, the chain being

  sufficiently drawn only to prevent being slipped over his head, and that there was

  no other place in the room to which he could be fastened, except to one of the

  joists above. His hands were tied in front; a white man who had been at work

  with Lewis during the day was left with him by the Messrs. Castleman, the better

  to insure his detention, whilst they were absent after Reuben. It was proved by

  this man (who was a witness for the prosecution) that Lewis asked for a box to


  stand on, or for something that he could jump off from; that after the Castle-

  mans had left him he expressed a fear that when they came back he would be

  whipped again; and said, if he had a knife, and could get one hand loose, he

  would cut his throat. The witness stated that the negro `stood firm on his feet,'

  that he could turn freely in whatever direction he wished, and that he made no

  complaint of the mode of his confinement. This man stated that he remained

  with Lewis about half an hour, and then left there to go home.

  “After punishing Reuben, the Castlemans returned to the warehouse, bringing

  him with them; their object being to confront the two men, in the hope that by

  further examination of them jointly, all their accomplices might be detected.

  “They were not absent more than half an hour. When they entered the

  room above, Lewis was found hanging by the neck, his feet thrown behind him,

  his knees a few inches from the floor, and his head thrown forward--the body

  warm and supple (or relaxed), but life was extinct.

  “It was proved by the surgeons who made a post-mortem examination before the

  coroner's inquest, that the death was caused by strangulation by hanging; and

  other eminent surgeons were examined to show, from the appearance of the brain

  and its blood-vessels after death (as exhibited at the post-mortem examination),

  that the subject could not have fainted before strangulation.

  “After the evidence was finished on both sides, the jury from their box and of

  their own motion, without a word from counsel on either side, informed the

  Court that they had agreed upon their verdict. The counsel assented to its being

  thus received, and a verdict of “Not Guilty” was immediately rendered. The

  attorney for the commonwealth then informed the Court that all the evidence for

  the prosecution had been laid before the jury; and as no new evidence could be

  offered on the trial of Stephen D. Castleman, he submitted to the Court the pro-

  priety of entering a nolle prosequi. The judge replied that the case had been

  fully and fairly laid before the jury upon the evidence; that the Court was not only

  satisfied with the verdict, but, if any other had been rendered, it must have been