Complete Works of Harriet Beecher Stowe

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

  I am opposed to them, because their plans, so far from bringing about the abolition of slavery, will but rivet the chains on the slave, and bring disaster on both master and slave. Because it strews the paths of both master and slave with difficulties and dangers. Because their interference makes slaves more impertinent and unhappy, frequently subjecting them to harsh and cruel treatment.

  I am opposed to their theories and views, because they are illogical, and because so far as there is any truth in them, it is abstract truth, and not real truth, as modified by circumstances. Because they refuse to view things as they are, but rather as they should be, and are utterly reckless as to results and consequences.

  And finally, I am opposed to them, because there is no fairness, justice, truth, or righteousness in them. The following is from the Detroit Free Press; and I shall give it without comment. It is headed “THE MORALITY OF NEGRO-STEALING.”

  “A novice might suppose, in witnessing the chuckle of satisfaction that has been noticeable among a certain class of people hereabouts within a few days back, that stealing is a virtue, and that the receiver of stolen goods is, par excellence, a model Christian. And even a man of some experience in the world might doubt the morality of the precept “to do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you,” in view of the effrontery and impudence of those who regard negro stealing as a Christian duty.

  “A paper in this city, which professes that the free soil party do not aim to attack the institution of slavery in those states where it exists, unblushingly published a few days since the proceedings of a meeting of free negroes, held on the occasion of the arrival here of a quantity of runaway negroes from some of the Southern States. We say, unblushingly, because more than usual prominence was given to the proceedings in its columns.

  “Now, there is no difference, under the Constitution and laws, between stealing negroes from Kentucky and stealing horses from Kentucky. The Constitution of the United States and the laws of Kentucky hold one not less criminal than the other; and a paper in this city would be just precisely as justifiable in publishing the proceedings of a horse stealing society as the proceedings of a negro stealing society. There is not less guilt involved in the one than the other.

  “For our own part we are disposed to call things by their right names. We believe that he who would be guilty of aiding and abetting the escape of a negro from his master, would not hesitate to steal any other property if he could do it with equal safety to himself. The fact that slaveholding is a sin does not change the nature of the offense, because the Bible doctrine of submission to the powers that be, is a plain and unequivocal duty. Negro stealing is as much a violation of the law of God as of the law of a Southern State.

  “But we have not much faith in the Christianity of those abolitionists who steal negroes. And the receiver of stolen goods is equally guilty with the thief. Tom Corwin was not far out of the way (and it must be conceded that Mr. Corwin has had abundant opportunities to know) when he declared that ‘they (the abolitionists) are a whining, canting, praying set of fellows who keep regular books of debit and credit with the Almighty.’ ‘They will,’ he says, ‘lie and cheat all the week, and pray off their sins on Sunday. If they steal a negro, that makes a very large entry to their credit, and will cover a multitude of peccadilloes and frauds. This kind of entry they are always glad to make, because it costs them nothing.’ ‘But,’ adds Mr. Corwin, and this is the severest cut of all, ‘when they cannot steal a negro they give something in charity for the extension of the gospel, and then commence a system of fraud and cheating, till they think they have balanced accounts with their God.’ For once we believe Mr. Corwin has told the truth.”

  CHAPTER IV.

  Would the condition of the slaves be ameliorated by emancipation, under existing circumstances; supposing they continue, either in the slave, or free States? This is a grave question, and so far as I am capable, I shall endeavor to give it a candid and impartial answer. Having resided both in slave and free States, I presume that I have had as good an opportunity of forming a correct opinion on the subject as most of others. It has long been my settled conviction, that the condition of the slaves in the United States, would be in no respect bettered by emancipation in their present condition, under existing circumstances; supposing that they continue residents of the United States. It is in my view, no longer problematical; for I consider it a settled question, that their condition would in no respect be improved by emancipation; but on the contrary, I contend, that the condition of the free negroes in both the slave and free States, is far worse than that of the Southern slave. I shall again appeal to historical facts — past experience — and universal observation. Throughout the slave States, ever since slavery has existed on this continent, conscientious and benevolent persons have, from time to time emancipated slaves; and that too, in many instances, under the most favorable circumstances. And what was the result? In nine cases out of ten, and I think it probable, that in ninety-nine out of a hundred, their conditions were evidently made worse thereby. This is an indisputable fact, well known throughout the South. I resided forty-four years in the slave States, and had as favorable opportunities as any man living, for forming correct opinions on the subject, and I do here most solemnly aver, that of the hundreds of manumitted slaves, that came under my immediate observation, few, comparatively very few, appeared to be benefited by the change. The condition of a large majority of the free blacks in Tennessee and Virginia, who fell under my observation, was deplorable, and farther South, I suppose, that it was still worse. I practiced medicine among them for twenty years, and conversed freely with them; in some instances on the subject of their emancipation, and they frequently admitted, that they were in a more comfortable condition while they were slaves.

  A majority of the slaves in the Southern States are professedly pious; the free negroes more rarely so. A majority of the slaves appear to be honest; a majority of the free blacks are petty thieves, drunkards, liars and gamblers. I have frequently known slaves set at liberty on account of their piety and other good qualities, and within a few years most of them would undergo a change for the worse — frequently, in fact, become vicious in the extreme. One instance I will here record. A gentleman in Western Virginia, by name Carter, held a slave, Absalom by name. Absalom became a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. He began praying in public a short time after his admission into the church. Soon he was licensed to exhort, next to preach. All this occurred, I believe, within less than eighteen mouths. He was powerful in prayer, and eloquent in exhortation. No one doubted his piety. He was prospectively liberated by a will. Carter, however, told him verbally, about this time, that he had made provisions in his will for his liberation, and that henceforth he could go where he chose, and do as he pleased. That he was a free man. What was the consequence? It was not long before a young lady belonging to a respectable family, was delivered of a mulatto child. On being questioned as to the child’s paternity, she stated that it was parson Absalom’s. Those interested, immediately called on him, and he frankly confessed that he was the father of the child. Poor Absalom, he was promoted by the church, set at liberty by his master; caressed and eulogized by the white brethren — it was too much for him — he could not bear it — until finally, he was “lifted up with pride,” and “fell into the condemnation of the devil.” Then might the church mourn, “O Absalom, my son! how art thou fallen.” This is not an isolated case; many similar ones fell under my observation, but I cannot stop here to record them. In the city of Knoxville, East Tennessee, where I last resided while in the South; there were several hundred free negroes, and I could readily distinguish a free negro from a slave when I met him in the street. The slaves, to use Southern parlance, looked fat, saucy, happy and contented, while the free blacks, with a few exceptions, had a miserable and dejected appearance. When slaves are liberated in the South they immediately become stupid, indolent and improvident, though they were previous to their liberation, indus
trious and economical. If previous to their liberation they were pious, they frequently become vicious; if temperate while slaves, they often become drunkards, after they obtain their freedom; if honest, thieves; if truthful, liars. There are exceptions, I admit, and they are but few exceptions. These are undeniable facts — melancholy truths — would to God that it had fallen to the lot of some one else to record them.

  I have endeavored, in the preceding pages, to show that the condition of the slaves of the South; so far from being improved; is made worse by emancipation under existing circumstances. Free negroes meet with but little sympathy in the South, and with still less in the North. A residence of a few years in the slave and also in the free States, will satisfy anyone of the truth of this remark. Free negroes are more odious to Northern than to Southern people. In all the varied and multifarious relations of social life, they are told to stand aside. Under no circumstances, social, civil or religious, can the white man and the African, meet on terms of equality and reciprocity. They are debarred from social intercourse with the whites. They are not suffered to become, so far as I know, members of any secret society, association or organization, whatever. Beside the white man at the hospitable board, they cannot, they dare not sit; and to a seat in the white man’s parlor, and social converse, they dare not aspire. The carpet of the white man was not spread for them, and around his cheerful hearth, before his crackling fire, there is no place for them. They are not suffered to participate in any of the festivities or amusements of their more highly favored white brethren. If they are admitted into the same crowd, they must not commingle with the whites; they are required to stand to one side. If they are admitted into the same house, a separate apartment is assigned to them, and if to the same table, they are taught to wait in patience until the white man is satiated; and then to be content with the fragments and crumbs. If they enter the same church, a separate bench, or a separate apartment in the church is allotted to them; for beside the white man they dare not sit, while engaged in devotional exercises. The black man’s children are not gathered together in the same school room, with the white man’s. They are denied in free, as well as in slave States, the right of suffrage, or any participation, whatever, in civil affairs. All this is true of free, as well as slave States, with a few exceptions. The free negro in no respect betters his condition, by taking up his residence in a free State. In some respects it is made worse by the change. They are offcasts from society — loathed and despised, wherever they go. Nature has interposed an impassable barrier, between the white and the black man. It is not alone tho black skin, and the woolly hair of the African that render him so odious to the Anglo-Saxon. The two races are diverse, mentally and morally — in their social qualities, habits, tastes and feelings. I shall not stop here to draw a contrast in detail, but after a few remarks I shall pass on.

  The African differs from the Anglo-Saxon in his physical conformation, by his black skin, his curly hair, his flat nose and broad flat foot. Nor is he less distinctly marked by his mental characteristics. Content to repose on the bosom of his mother terra firma, he is not disturbed by dreams of honor, wealth or fame. He does not with the white man possess that towering ambition, that soars aloft in climes ethereal. There is with the African no motive to spur him to action; no incentive to the acquisition of wealth; no aspiration for power; no desire for honor or fame. Self reliance and enterprise, are the peculiar characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon race; on the contrary, the African in his native state, is content with his hut and his palm-leaf shade, and he is now what he was centuries ago; there is no improvement or change whatever. The African under no circumstances, in any part of the habitable globe, has ever attained a high degree of civilization. “For centuries on centuries, Africa has remained stationary, and at the very lowest stage of civilization, but one remove indeed above brutishness.” “Back to that merely animal existence too, the Jamaica blacks are fast retrograding.” The African is constitutionally indolent and improvident. Work he will not, so far as he is able to avoid it, nor will he economize what falls into his hands, I do them no injustice. I appeal to facts. Look at the condition of the free negroes, North and South! Look at Africa — behold the African race the world over, and then tell me from whence come their universal poverty, ignorance and degradation. The African possesses none of that sensitiveness — that acuteness of sensibility — that delicacy and refinement of taste, which characterize the white race. There is with the African a predominance of the animal propensities, and with him, their gratification, constitutes the sum total of life and all its enjoyments. He knows no other enjoyment, he has no higher object, or aim. It is therefore, very clear, that abolitionists are contending for an impracticability; that the two races cannot amalgamate and become one people, and enjoy equal rights and privileges; that they cannot live together on terms of perfect equality. The white man has the pre-eminence; it is the gift of God; and the African is doomed to servitude, until he is removed beyond the white man’s reach. The African is not fully prepared for the enjoyment of liberty. Hence, the universal emancipation of the race, supposing that they were colonized, would be very likely to throw them back into their original barbarism; and the idea of liberating the entire slave population of the Southern States, and letting them loose upon us, is so ridiculous, that it scarcely deserves notice. It would be to us as a moral pestilence; a plague, far worse than all the plagues of Egypt! Yes, far worse, than frogs and lice, and locusts, and flies, and murrain of beasts, and biles on man, and darkness all combined. Free negroes would then deluge the great Northern cities. It would be as tornadoes and volcanoes let loose upon us. Our country is already deluged with as many vagrants, as she is able to jog along with.

  CHAPTER V.

  I consider slavery an evil, an individual evil, a national calamity; but I believe that the evil falls more heavily on the master, than on the slave. In order to understand this subject correctly, we must contemplate the African in his native ignorance and destitution; his brutal barbarism and his savage ferocity. We need but contrast the African in his original state, with the well housed, well clothed, and well fed slave of the United States. I am well aware, that an objection will be urged against this view of the subject, on the ground, that when brought to this country they were deprived of their liberty; and this with some persons is proof positive, that their individual happiness was curtailed thereby. The argument then resolves itself into this; is the happiness of individuals, under all circumstances, diminished by depriving them of their liberty? I have already attempted to prove, that the happiness of slaves in this country is diminished by attempting to restore them to liberty, and I may again recur to this subject before I close this essay. For this reason, I shall waive, at the present time, the refutation of what I conceive a gross error, unless the objector is satisfied with a few general remarks on the subject. I assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that neither the happiness of individuals, nor yet of nations, is always augmented by what is sometimes falsely called liberty. It depends wholly on the virtue and intelligence of individuals, and nations, as to whether liberty or servitude will conduce to their happiness and general welfare. We have no doubt, that the condition of the Mexican Republic would be greatly bettered at this time, by placing over them, a humane and politic king. Whoever is incompetent to take care of himself, is fortunate indeed, when he finds a competent individual, who, will perform that office for him. Show me a nation who are so debased by vice and ignorance, that they are incapable of self-government, and you show me a nation who ought to be ruled by a king or an emperor. Show me an individual, who is incompetent to provide for, and take care of himself, and you show me an individual whose happiness would be augmented by subjecting him to a humane man. Abolitionists, propagandists, and filibusters, would do well to bear these facts in mind. Servitude is sometimes a grievous calamity to the unfortunate slave, for the cruelty and brutality of some masters, better entitle them to the appellation of demons than men. There are, a
nd ever have been, and ever will be such, but I am happy to believe, that there are comparatively few such monsters among the slaveholders at the present time. I am well aware that but few masters, in the treatment of their slaves, have complied with the requisitions of Divine revelation, but cruelty to slaves is by no means common among slaveholders at the present time.

  I have said that I regarded the evils of slavery as falling most heavily on the slaveholders; in other words, on the white population. Slavery begets idleness; idleness begets vice; and vice plunges individuals into-wretchedness, degradation and infamy. In some of the slave States, the slaves perform most of the labor, consequently children are brought up in idleness. The inevitable consequence is, that a large majority of them, long before they arrive to adult age, are deplorably vicious. It is in the extreme Southern States, that this evil is most apparent.

  The demoralizing influence of slavery is not so great in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Western Virginia. The evil falls mostly on the male population; females not being exposed to the same temptations.

  The boy is let loose at an early age, and runs into all manner of excesses; not so with the girl; for from childhood to adult age, she is ever under the eye of her mother; and I do not suppose, that for intelligence, beauty and refinement, the world can produce a set of females superior to the Southern ladies; though, the manner in which they are brought up, their habits and modes of life, too often incapacitate them for the active duties incumbent on mothers.

  It has been stated as one of the effects of slavery, that it renders men proud, haughty and tyrannical. There may be some truth in the remark, but I am well satisfied, that there is not so much as some suppose. In contrasting the character of the white population in the slave and free states, it is somewhat difficult to ascertain the precise influence of the institution of slavery, in moulding and shaping Southern character. We must, in an investigation of the subject, take into consideration the influence of climate North and South, and various other influences less obvious, though not less certain to leave their impress on human character. I have neither time, nor space, for a thorough examination of the subject, and must, therefore, after stating some facts, leave the reader to arrive at his own conclusions. Southern people are proverbially liberal and hospitable. No Southerner can fail, after a short residence in the North, to observe opposite traits of character in Northern people; and the Southerner, after emigrating to the North, is soon forced, in self defence, or rather prompted by the laws of self preservation, to close up the avenues of his liberality, and assume an attitude, or rather take a position in society, unknown to him while a resident of a Southern clime. The liberality of Southern people too often leads them into recklessness in the management of their pecuniary transactions, which frequently results in embarrassment and ruin. A Southerner to his friend, never says no. He promptly and cheerfully complies with his request, and, truly, the giver, if not more “blessed,” appears to be more happy than the receiver. Whatever they do, they seem to do it cheerfully. They act as if they esteemed it a singular favor, to have it in their power to relieve a friend. A Southern man will part with his last dime to aid a friend, though, he may be forced, in less than twenty four hours, to borrow money himself. I long lived among them, embarrassed by a series of unprecedented misfortunes, and their generosity I shall never forget. I shall carry the recollection of it to my grave; it will, no doubt, soothe me on my dying bed. Dear friends of the sunny South, in an evil hour I was separated from you, and what I have suffered since both in body and mind, God only knows. Ah! I could tell a tale, but I forbear. There is a marked contrast in the manner in which strangers are treated North and South. Every stranger in the South is presumed to be an honest man, until he proves himself to be a rogue. Every stranger in the North, is presumed to be a rogue, until he proves himself an honest man. Another Southern peculiarity is, that no one can attack the character of another, without incurring the risk of loosing his life. The slanderer in the South is an outlaw, and the injured party incurs but little more risk in stabbing, or shooting him, than he would in shooting a mad dog; for public opinion justifies the deed, and a jury of his fellow citizens will acquit him. This is literally and emphatically true, if the female is the injured party. In the latter case, any relation or friend is at liberty, to silence forever the tongue of the slanderer. If he that slanders a female is in danger, he that seduces her runs a risk tenfold. A few days previous to my leaving the city of Knoxville, Tenn., an old man, by name M., walked into the court-house, (court in session) and deliberately shot down a gentleman, by name N. He lived after the discharge of thirty-six buckshot into his body, but a few minutes. N. was an official character, and one of the most popular men in the county, and though I remained in the city but a few days after the perpetration of the atrocious act, I discovered that nine-tenths of the community justified him in the horrible deed. It was not long before I received information, that the murderer of N. was acquitted. The crime of N. was seduction. Similar occurrences are frequent in the South.