The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus Part 256

ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR.

It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467 free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if the whole ma.s.s of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey, or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance, and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe, as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor, however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition, it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders, for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves _can_ be,"[97] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from the decks of the middle pa.s.sage, as to set them free in this country,"[98]

nor that "a sudden and universal emanc.i.p.ation without colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves, than the bondage in which they are held."

[Footnote 97: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.

p. 99.]

[Footnote 98: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.]

It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash a.s.sertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in a.s.suring us, that the slaves are rendered _discontented_ by _witnessing_ the freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to a.s.sist in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty.

We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not ordinarily sold in the market--that he himself does not toil under the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable, that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked prejudice--cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary adoption, and its malignant character.

Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our cruelty.[99] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to the character of that G.o.d whom we are told is LOVE. With what astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are a.s.sured, and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as if in mockery, to "love one another."

[Footnote 99: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument, nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation _inevitable and incurable_."--_Address of the Connecticut Col.

Society_. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any considerable extent as a cla.s.s in this country, which are fixed, not only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of _any human power_: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do for them in Africa. This is not the _fault_ of the colored man, _nor of the white man_, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, _and no more to be changed than the laws of nature_."--15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.

p. 47.

"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages, probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."--African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196.

"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding all the distinctions which G.o.d himself has made, they arraign the wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and to distinguish them by other _repulsive_ const.i.tutional differences."--Speech in Senate of the United States, February 7, 1839, by HENRY CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.]

In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious, or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it, that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true, that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their Maker's will. This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as the _cause_ of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emanc.i.p.ation have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed, negro slavery would fall with it. Such persons have very inadequate ideas of the malignity of slavery. They forget that the slaves in Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as the complexion recedes from the African standard.

Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance, are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana, but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio!

It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against their _persons_ is far weaker than among ourselves.

It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism, certainly affords no cause for surprise.

We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the prejudice against color _here_? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication of the Colonization Society, a.s.sures us, "The _Soodra_ is not farther separated from the _Brahim_ in regard to all his privileges, civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by THE G.o.d OF NATURE."--(_Rep. Am. Col. Soc._ p. 87.)

We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference _is_ made by the G.o.d OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the prejudice, and the other to banish its victims.

With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the customs of society.

1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable, was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of the reasons they a.s.signed for their revolt from the crown of Britain.

But _now_, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of a whole race, while they remain subject to the burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen original States, only _two_ were so recreant to the principles of the Revolution, as to make a _white skin_ a qualification for suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in _every_ State const.i.tution subsequently formed or revised,[excepting Vermont and Maine, and the Revised const.i.tution of Ma.s.sachusetts,]

the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[100] The necessary effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all who have votes to bestow.

[Footnote 100: From this remark the revised const.i.tution of New York is _nominally_ an exception; colored citizens, possessing a _freehold_ worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while suffrage is extended to _white_ citizens without any property qualification.]

2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION.

It is in vain that the Const.i.tution of the United States expressly guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States:"--It is in vain that the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pa.s.s through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or _otherwise_." It is in vain that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the const.i.tution conferring this very guarantee. Const.i.tutions, and judicial decisions, and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this cla.s.s of our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable violations of the State const.i.tution, and manifest an absence of moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is alarming. We speak the language, not of pa.s.sion, but of sober conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers.

We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of other States from removing into Ohio. By the const.i.tution of New York, the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this cla.s.s, confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal const.i.tution removes into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his _good behavior_; and likewise for his _maintenance_, should he at any future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself, and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a _black_ stranger, to find such sureties. It was the _design_ of the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future maintenance!!

We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free.

The _date_ of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given to the a.s.sertion. If a barbarous enactment is _recent_, its odium is thrown upon the friends of the blacks--if _ancient_, we are a.s.sured it is _obsolete_. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830 the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a very large proportion of the present colored population of the State must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced, proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their legislators--that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its very existence forgotten.

In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and about _one thousand free blacks_ were in consequence of it driven out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this reply,--"Tell the _republicans_ on your side of the line, that we royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you will be ent.i.tled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper Canada.

We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated 12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all "black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,--"Whites, look out!

If any person or persons _employing_ any black or mulatto person, contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and continues it in being.

Now what says the const.i.tution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights; among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, _acquiring, possessing, and protecting property_, and pursuing and attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker to witness, that they would obey this very const.i.tution, require impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in exchange for his honest labor!

3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PEt.i.tION.

We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other State in the Union, has their right to pet.i.tion for a redress of their grievances been denied.

On the 14th January, 1839, a pet.i.tion for relief from certain legal disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the _popular_ branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved by George H. Flood.[101] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer, but an _expulsion of the pet.i.tion itself_, as an intruder into the house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the members, "is simply this--Shall human beings, who are bound by every enactment upon our statute book, be _permitted_ to _request_ the legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To the Grand Sultan, crowded with pet.i.tions as he traverses the streets of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but American democrats can exert a tyranny over _men who have no votes_, utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by a majority of only _four_ votes; but this triumph of humanity and republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The _next_ day, the House, by a large majority, resolved: "That the blacks and mulattoes who may be residents within this State, have no const.i.tutional right to present their pet.i.tions to the General a.s.sembly for any purpose whatsoever, and that any reception of such pet.i.tions on the part of the General a.s.sembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed or implied power of the Const.i.tution."

[Footnote 101: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.]

The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its a.s.sertions are base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply, that the Const.i.tution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication, confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right to offer a pet.i.tion to the legislature for any object whatever; nor imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a pet.i.tion; and whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency.

Hence it is obvious, that the _principle_ on which the resolution is founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and hearing pet.i.tions _rest solely on const.i.tutional enactment_, and not on moral obligation. The reception of negro pet.i.tions is declared to be a mere act of _privilege or policy_. Now it is difficult to imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life.

The victim of oppression or fraud has no _right_ to appeal to the const.i.tuted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under any obligation to consider the appeal--the needy and unfortunate have no right to implore the a.s.sistance of their more fortunate neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio, unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Const.i.tution!

But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of the Const.i.tution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The words of the Const.i.tution, which it is pretended sanction the resolution we are considering are the following, viz.--"The _people_ have a right to a.s.semble together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good, to _instruct their representatives_, and to apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a redress of grievances is coupled with the right of _instructing their representatives_, and as negroes are not electors and consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they are not part of _the people_. That Ohio legislators are not Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to pet.i.tion." If then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Const.i.tution of Ohio denies the right of pet.i.tion to all but electors, let us consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place, every female in the State is placed under the same disability with "blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce--no daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under twenty-one years--no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient residence, or other qualification, is not ent.i.tled to vote--no individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the State--however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like "blacks and mulattoes," he "has no const.i.tutional right to present his pet.i.tion to the General a.s.sembly for any purpose whatever."

Again--the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed to construct her ca.n.a.ls. Should any of these creditors lose their certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a "mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed or implied power of the Const.i.tution," for, not being voters, they stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in the nineteenth century.

4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA.

The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that forbids a portion of its subjects to partic.i.p.ate in the national defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain cla.s.s of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their native country, is necessarily to consign that cla.s.s to general contempt.

5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTIc.i.p.aTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin, they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is sanctioned by the laws of any _free_ State, with one exception. That exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO.

A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto _person_ or _persons_ shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any WHITE person."

We have seen that on the subject of pet.i.tion the legislature regards itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by the Const.i.tution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the 8th Article, viz.--"All courts shall be open, and every _person_, for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without denial or delay."