looking after the marriages of the blacks, to see that there was ſome order and ſolemnity in the manner, and that the marriages ſhould be recorded, and ſhould be binding for life. See The Friend, Vol. xvii. 29, 4to., Phil. 1843.
No Chriſtian man or woman, Quaker or Puritan, could fail to be ſhocked at the looſeneſs of all such ties and relations under the ſlave ſyſtem. One ſolitary witneſs againſt ſlavery in Maſſachuſetts in 1700, referred to the well known "Temptations Maſters were under to connive at the Fornication of their Slaves, leſt they ſhould be obliged to find them Wives or pay their Fines." Sewall, 1700. The laws againſt the irregular commerce of the sexes were an awkward part of a ſyſtem which eſtabliſhed and protected ſlavery, and marriage (ſuch as it was) ſaved the expenſe of conſtant fines to maſters and miſtreſſes for delinquent ſlaves.
But what protection was there for the married ſtate or ſanction of marital or parental rights and duties? This law did not and could not protect or ſanction either, and muſt have been of little practical value to the ſlaves. Governed by the humor or intereſt of the maſter or miſtreſs, their marriage was not a matter of choice with them, more than any other action of their life. Who was to judge whether the denial of a maſter or miſtreſs was unreaſonable or not? And what remedy had the ſlave in caſe of denial?[1] The owner of a valuable female ſlave was to
- ↑ The caſe of The Inhabitants of Stockbridge vs. The Inhabitants of Weſt Stockbridge—regarding the ſettlement of a negro pauper (who had been a ſoldier in the American Army of the Revolution) preſents a deciſion of the
