CHAPTER VI.
PROTECTIVE ACTS WITH REGARD TO FOOD AKD RAIMENT, LABOR, ETC.
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 labor.
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 gentlemen generally at the North;
Wheeler, p.
220. State v.
Suc. Cameron
& Norwood's
C. Rep. 54.
since, as Judge Taylor says, "the act of
1786 (Iredell's Revisal, p. 588)
does, in the preamble, recognize
the fact, that many persons, by
treatment of their slaves,
cause them to commit crimes for which
they are executed;" 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, and overseeing of slaves, do confine them so closely to hard labor 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 punishment is to consist in hard labor, 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 neighboring 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 neighboring justice in the parish where such slave or slaves live, or are usually employed, * * * and the said justice shall summons 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 discretion 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.—2 Brevard's, Dig. 241. Also Cobb's Dig. 827.
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:[1]
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- ↑ Slavery as It Is; Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. New York, 1839. pp. 62, 53.
