OCR Text |
Show 190 DESPOTISl\t lcgisla1ion, reenacted in 1722, and again in 1735, was modified by an act of 17-lO, as follows: "All n.<'gro~s, Indians, mulattoes, and mustazocs, (free Indmns 111 amity with thiR govc:'rnmcnt, and negroes, mulattoes, and mustazocs who are now free, excepted,) who now a rc or shall hereafter be in this province, a nd all their issue and oOSpring, born or to be born, sha ll be, and they are hereby declared to be and remain for ever hereafter, absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother, and shall be deemed in law chattels personal." In all claims of freedom, the burden of proof was to be on the claimant, and it was to be always presumed that every negro, Indian, mulatto, and mestizo is a slave, unless t he contrary appear. The word rnesti=o seems to be employed (though sometimes used elsewhere in a diiTcrcnt sense) to desig nate t he mixed Indian blood; any ad~ mixture, however slight, of negro or Indian blood being included, according to South Carolina usage, undN the e pithets 1nulatto and rnesti::o, and carrying the presumption of slavery with them. This act, which forms the legal basis, such as it i;;, of the existing slave~holding system of South Carolina, was preceded and followed by all the customary barbarous enactments of slave codes, which in South Carolina were carrieU to a d~gree of unusual ferocity both iu substance and expression. Yet the South Carolina aS>emhly seem to have supposed themselves to be legislating within the limits ol' the English Jaw;. for at the very same session at which the slave act of 1712 was enacted, the common law ol' England was de~ clared to be in force in South Carolina. In North Carolina no colonial act seems ever to have g iven a legislative basi::; to 1he authority of the ma~tcr, w hich rested, and still rests, upon mrrc c?;;~ tom, and the old imaginary right, under t he English commo11 Jaw, to reduce infidehi a11d their dcscc11dants to seni1ntle. So far a:o; r('latc.s lo the ~lavery of In~ dians, the Carolinians of both provinces had been from IN AMERICA. 191 t~1e .beginning n?torious sinners. They had an irre· sistJble propens1ty Lo kidnap the unhappy natives, and reduce tl.wm to slaver.y. ~ndee<l, one chief ground of quarrel w1th the propn etan cs of the provincE' arcw out of eflorts made by t hem to put a stop t~ 0 thi• iniquity. Gcor~ia, it is well known, was originally intended ~o be ~.f ree colony j ~ ~~d dming the ci,qhtcen years that Its afla1r~ w~re admm1stcred by the 'l'ruste.cs w ho haU planted 1t, slavery was strictly prohibited. But the vagabond.s from the s~rcets of London, (for su ch were the. Engli~h settl~r~ !n Georgia,) raised a loud outcry agamst this prolubitJOn, ascribing to it the poverty and slow progress of the colony, the natural result of their own jncapacity and idleness. The famous Whitefield pleaded with t he Trustees in favor of sla~cry, under the old slavc~had ing pretence of propa· gatmg, by that means, the Christian religion. 'l'he German Lutherans settled in Georgia long had scru· pies;, but they were reassured by the heads of t heir sc~t m Ge:many : "If you take slaves in fai th, and Wlt.h the. mtcnt of conducting them to Christ, t he action wdl not be a sin, but may prove a benediction." 'l'hus, as u su al, t he rcliaious sentiment and its most disinterested votaries w~e made the tools of worldly selfishness, for the enslavement and plunder of mankind. One of t he first acts of the new ??vernment, which succeeded to the aut.hority of t he lrustees, (1752,) was, the repeal of the prohibition of slavery. It was n?t, however, till thirteen years after· wards that the legislature of Georgia reinforced what they supposed to be the common Jaw on this subject, by pos1hve . enactment. In 1765, they copied the South Carohna act of 1740 · excepting however from mth e 8 t ern doo~ of slavery', not only ' such ne'g roes, ulattoes, mestizoes, and India ns as already were free but such also as miaht aftcnvard::; become free · tim~ achk'n owIe d oa·m g a po0 ss1· b1• li· ty ')o f futu re manumt•s ' slons, w Jch the South Carolina statutes seemed to cut off. |