Your ShelfYour Projects

The Shrew Untamed

7%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 9, 1866

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 27, No. 6.

Read the full edition

The Shrew Untamed.

By Editor

South Carolina has not adopted the Constitutional Amendment. What is that amendment? It is a prohibition of slavery. South Carolina is at this moment re-enacting slavery. Behold the proof!
A bird has flown to our office with a copy of the new Carolinian code prepared for the government of the free blacks—a pamphlet which, as yet, is a literary rarity in the North. This code, at the last advices, had passed to a second reading, and was in prospect of adoption. Governor Perry describes it to the President of the United States as "a wise, just, and humane system of the laws for the government and protection of the freedmen." On the contrary, after a careful reading, we pronounce it an evasion of the Constitutional amendment, a fraud upon the black man, a snare for the Federal Government, and an affront to the moral sense of the North. It is a Slave Code, changed only in name. It is as infamous for 1865 as the Fugitive Slave Law was for 1850.
"The master shall have authority to inflict moderate chastisement," says this new code. But is this the language of Freedom? Is it not rather the stereotyped expression of the good old time when men's backs ran blood from the cat-o'-nine? The black man is stripped naked of his rights; the white man carries a whip in his hand; and this is the reinstatement of South Carolina!
"All persons of color," it says, "who make contracts for service or labor, shall be known as servants, and those with whom they contract shall be known as masters." Why so? Free States never say this. A mechanic in the North is not called a "servant." A hired man on a farm is not called a "servant." Moreover, the codifiers have forgotten that the freemen of South Carolina have been spoken to by the New Testament, saying, "Call no man master."
"Servants," it says, "shall rise at the dawn in the morning, feed, water, and care for the animals on the farm, do the usual and needful work about the premises, prepare their meals for the day, if required by the master, and begin the farm-work by sunrise." All this is what Yankee boys do on farms in Vermont and Maine; but would they submit to being commanded to do it by a State legislature? When did the law of the land ever before undertake to say at what hour a free citizen must get up in the morning? Why, then, should not the same law prescribe how he shall clean his teeth and comb his hair?
"Servants shall not be absent from the premises without the written consent of the master." But suppose the premises are a five-acre farm, are the work-hands, after work-hours, never to overtread its edge without a pass? If in Pennsylvania or Ohio, a mechanic wants to go to singing-school on a Saturday night, or to church on a Sunday morning, must he first beg his week-day employer's gracious permission? Such a law gives power to every white man in Charleston to turn his residence into a Bastile for the negroes' perpetual imprisonment.
"Any person who shall deprive a master of the service of his servant by enticing him away, or harboring or detaining him, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, and to imprisonment or hard labor, at the discretion of the court." Does this sound like legislation for freemen? Is not this the Fugitive Slave Law over again, with all its pains and penalties?
"It is the duty of servants to be equally civil and polite to their masters." Is it indeed! And does the sovereign State of South Carolina propose to teach etiquette and manners by public law? And will the Legislature assist in the good work by giving lessons in dancing?
"A person of color, who wishes to pursue or practice the art, trade, or business of an artisan, mechanic or shop keeper, or any other trade," must do what?—must simply begin and go ahead, as every Northern free man does?—no, he must "apply by petition to the Judge of the District Court for a license!" If a Yankee should think of starting a dry goods store, or a coffee-mill, or a bakery, or anything but a gunpowder shop, would he begin by suing for a license? If the law should put such a barrier before a white man, would the law stand a week?
"During the term of service, the house occupied by any servant is the master's; and on the expiration of the term of service, the servant shall be immediately removed. O Lord Brougham! Why did you ever say an Englishman's house is his castle? Not even a black man's squalid cabin is his own!
"Persons of color constitute no part of the militia of the State!" But this is an insult to every survivor of Fort Wagner. "No one of them," says the code, "shall be allowed to keep a fire-arm, sword or military weapon." And all this in spite of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both of which assert the citizen's right to bear arms.
Is there no single redeeming feature in this code of abomination? Yes, there is one. Here it is: "If there be a school, within a convenient distance, in which colored children are taught, the master shall send his young servant to school at least six weeks in every year." Is that a gleam of humanity? Alas! the jewel quickly lost its lustre! At the very first reading of this provision, a member of the convention rose and said: "I am opposed to all humbug, and I move that this clause be stricken out;" and it was stricken out, unanimously and without debate!
This code, from beginning to end, is "iniquity framed into law"—an outrage upon Liberty—a revival of "chivalry"—a piece of malice aforethought against the negro—a scroll of injustice, which we hold up to the contempt of mankind!
And this is what South Carolina means by the Constitutional Amendment.—N. Y. Independent.